




*°^K 



4 o 


















V V'*^*>' 'V^-'V v*^ v y 









o V 




o > 














THE FREE SCHOOL IDEA IN 

VIRGINIA BEFORE THE 

CIVIL WAR 



A PHASE OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL 
EVOLUTION 



BY 

WILLIAM ARTHUR MADDOX 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, SOMETIME RESEARCH SCHOLAR 

IN THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS COLLEGE 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 
the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia Uni- 
versity, in the City of New York 



published by 

^eae&erg College, Columbia Mnttot&ity 

NEW YORK CITY 
1918 



/ 



THE FREE SCHOOL IDEA IN 

VIRGINIA BEFORE THE 

CIVIL WAR 

A PHASE OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL 
EVOLUTION 



BY 

WILLIAM ARTHUR MADDOX 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, SOMETIME RESEARCH SCHOLAR 

IN THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS COLLEGE 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 
the Faculty of Philosophy, Columbia Uni- 
versity, in the City of New York 



published by 

tCeacftergf College, Columbia WLnibzz&ity 

NEW YORK CITY 
1918 



*& 



COPYRIGHT, 1918 
WILLIAM ARTHUR M ADD OX 

All rights reserved 






FOREWORD 

This study is an attempt to assemble and interpret new 
documentary evidence upon the evolution of the common 
free school in Virginia. A preliminary survey of the field, 
" Elementary Education in Virginia during the Early Nine- 
teenth Century," was submitted to a seminar in the History 
of American Education at Teachers College in 191 1. That 
investigation represented an effort to organize the facts of 
local history as a basis for a course in the History of Modern 
Education for Virginia normal schools, training classes, and 
study circles of teachers in service. 

The investigation has been continued with the belief that 
the story of the state's educational transition from colony to 
commonwealth has never been told; that fragmentary bits 
of evidence have, in the main, suffered misinterpretation from 
sentimentalist and ill-informed critic alike. Virginia should 
not be condemned because it was not like the industrial states; 
nor should its apologists cite the glory of the University and 
gloss over the very significant struggle for popular education 
that characterized the Old Dominion during the first decades 
of the nineteenth century. Virginia before the War did not 
succeed in creating a centralized state system, supported by 
compulsory public taxation, but it would be equally wrong 
to say that it was a laggard among the states. One should 
approach this period with the assumption that ante-bellum 
Virginia evolved the foundations, at least, of a common free 
school system and moved, perhaps, as rapidly to a democrati- 
zation of its institutions as did any of the agricultural sections 
of the American states. 

My acknowledgment is due Professor Paul Monroe for his 
investigations and for those standards of scholarship which 
have been conscious goals in the progress of this work. To 
Professor William H. Kilpatrick, I am especially indebted for 
three readings of the manuscript, many conferences, and 
numerous fruitful suggestions of new lines of research. To 

iii 



iv Foreword 

Dr. I. L. Kandel, I am also grateful for a careful, critical 
reading of the manuscript. To Miss Julia C. Patton, of the 
Department of English, Teachers College, I am under obliga- 
tion for assistance in the final revision for the press. The 
greatest debt, however, is to my wife, without whose encourage- 
ment and constant help this study would have been impossible. 

W. A. M. 
Teachers College, Columbia University 
December 3, 191 7 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. The Colonial Social System and Early Free School 

Foundations . i-ii 

II. Early Proposals and Provisions for Free Primary 
Schools — the Bills of 1779-96. Jefferson's Idea of 
the Place of Education in a Democracy 12-22 

III. The Philanthropic-religious Motive in Early Elementary 

Education — "To Give the Poor the Power to Read." 
The Sunday School Offered as a Substitute for Common 
Schools 23-41 

IV. The Creation of the Virginia Literary Fund, 1810, 181 1 

and 1 816. Attempts to Secure State Legislation for 
the Education of the People. Jefferson and Mercer. 
Local vs. State Control in Educational Administration 
and Support 42-62 

V. Efforts to Create a State Free School System, 1815-1818, 
on the Foundation of the Literary Fund. A System of 
State Scholarships for the Education of the Poor Sub- 
stituted by the Act of 1818 63-75 

VI. Operation of the Literary Fund Primary Schools — their 
Limitations and Strength. The Divorce of the Primary 
«-— — — ScHOQL.-iLND University Parties 76-89 



VII. Attempts to Correct the Defects of the Literary Fund 

Schools. The Failure of the District Free School 
Act of 1829. Sectionalism in the Constitutional Con- 
vention of 1829-30 90-104 

VIII. The Status of the Elementary School Teacher. His 

Origin and Indifferent Qualifications a Factor in 
Retarding the Growth of State Primary Free Schools 105-125 

IX. Virginia's Part in the National Common School Revival, 
1840-60. A Widespread Popular Movement for Public 
Education . . 126-153 

X. Results of the Common School Revival — "The Schools 
for the Education of All Classes." Ante-bellum 
Foundations of the Virginia Public School System . . 154-169 
v 



vi Contents 

CHAPTER PAGE 

XI. Evolution of Common Schools Interrupted by the Civil 
War. The Act to Establish and Maintain a System of 
Public Free Schools in Virginia, 1870. The Principle 
of State Control Accepted 170-176 

XII. A Summary of Common School Progress before the 

Civil War. Conclusions 177-197 

Bibliography 199-217 

Index 219 



THE FREE SCHOOL IDEA IN VIRGINIA 
BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR 



CHAPTER I 



INTRODUCTION 



THE COLONIAL SOCIAL SYSTEM AND EARLY FREE SCHOOL 
FOUNDATIONS 

When Virginia's early Royal Governor, Sir William Berke- 
ley, anxious to secure himself with the restored Stuarts, 1 
reported in 167 1 to the Lord Commissioners of Trade and 
Plantations on conditions in the colony, " Thank God, there 
are no Free Schools," he gave rise to a misconception that has 
died only with the present generation. As a matter of fact, 
there had been English "free" school foundations in the colony 
almost from its inception. The Governor himself sanctioned 
private free school bequests when he approved the Act of 
1642, which incorporated the Benjamin Syms's School "accord- 
ing to the godly intent of the said testator and for the encourage- 
ment of others in like pious performances." 2 

The implications of Berkeley's historic exclamation are not 

1 Cf. Brown, Alexander, English Politics in Early Virginia History, 8, n, 
12, el seq.: "The first English colony [Virginia] was not founded by a king nor by 
an agent of a king nor on the monarchial principles of government advocated by 
a king." The charters of 1609 and 1612 were fathered by Sir Francis Bacon and 
Sir Edwin Sandys, who were at the same time leaders of the liberal party or "advo- 
cates of English rights" against "the secret court Spanish party" of James I. 
Sandys was also a prime factor in the affairs of the Virginia Company of London. 
Mr. Brown quotes one Captain John Bargraves, a contemporary of Sir Edwin 
Sandys, as saying, "Sandys' . . . purpose was to erect a free popular state in Vir- 
ginia in which the inhabitants should have no government put upon them but 
by their own consent." In 1624, however, this movement was interrupted by the 
establishment of "His Majesties' most princely government . . . thirteen coun- 
cilors in Virginia and as many in England, all nominated by His Majesty." One 
of Berkeley's early acts, 1642, was a "Declaration against the company" in answer 
to a petition of the Patriot or Liberal party in Virginia {vide Hening, I, 231). Dur- 
ing the period of the Commonwealth, patriot governors ruled the colony under the 
authority of the House of Burgesses, which was a representative body. In 1660, 
on Berkeley's return to power, a new House loyal to Charles II was returned and 
every effort was again made to stem the tide of popular government, which finally 
found expression in the revolution of 1776. Throughout Berkeley's administration 
every means was used to crush sedition, to prevent "misgovernment," as the 
governor artfully phrased self-government. 

2 Hening, Statutes, I: Act XVIII, March 1642-3, confirms Benjamin Syms's 
will giving lands for a free school in Elizabeth City County, and encourages all 

others in like pious performances." 



2 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

clear, as it confuses the issue of popular schools with that of 
liberal education. Since the primary object of the Syms 

\ school was to equip the poor with little more than the three 
r's, it has been advanced that Berkeley's protest was against 
the liberal or "free" courses of study of the great English 
Public Schools, Eton and Harrow, etc., not against the teach- 
ing of the mechanics of learning to tradesmen who were not 
intellectually "free" men at all. 3 William and Mary, 1693, 

- was the first free school — libera schola — in this sense in the 
colony. Yet Berkeley is said to have headed a subscription in 
1662, on his return to the governorship, for the establish- 
ment of such "a free school and college." But however this 
ambiguous term " free " is to be understood, there is no 
doubt as to Berkeley's main position. He feared the power of 
radical ideas expressed through free schools, free press and free 
pulpits. He remembered too well the dangerous activities of 
the "Patriot" party in the reign of James I and its sedition 
against "the best government." Only "court" histories re- 
ceived the royal imprimatur and one licensed newspaper and 
printing press was deemed sufficient for the colony. The 
whole spirit of his report is an arraignment of those agencies 
for self-government and for the diffusion of knowledge which 
the colony was even at that time nourishing. His philippic, 
indeed, indicates a substantial class in the colony who, through 
education, "had brought disobedience and heresy and sects 
into the world." It would seem to bear witness to the fact 
that the very idea he would suppress was dangerously active 
in Virginia, that royal interests had much to fear in a group 
of liberals intent on civil freedom. 

In a less widely quoted sentence in his answer to the Com- 
missioners' question, "What course is taken about instructing 
the people in the Christian religion?" Governor Berkeley 
did, however, state the future educational policy of Virginia 
when he said, "The same course that is taken in England out 
of town, every man according to his ability instructing his 
children," 4 i.e., every man teaching his own children and see- 
ing to it that the indigent were taught. Virginia was destined 
to become a colony of large landholders and dependents, and 

3 Cf. William and Mary Quarterly Historical Magazim, VI, 78. 

4 Honing, op. cit., 1671, II, 517. 



The Colonial Social System 3 

to find in the traditions, institutions, and social distinctions 
"of England out of town" an expression of its growing land 
and anti-commercial interests. 

It is not to be understood, however, that Virginia was a 
replica of English civilization in all its aspects. As a stage of 
social evolution there is reason to believe that with slavery 
and the new distinction between master and servant which 
that institution made, Virginia was, in its self-sustaining 
isolated "baronages," a replica of a much earlier state of 
English society than that of the Restoration with its great 
commons and industrial classes. The colony's social-economic 
system sprang from the policy implied in the English attorney- 
general Seymour's testy reply to Commissary Blair's plea 
in 1692 for a college for the education of native ministers, that 
the souls of the Indians and settlers might be saved: "Damn 
your souls, make tobacco!" The mother country encouraged 
the growth of large plantations and actively hindered navi- 
gation and every effort to establish towns and encourage in- 
dustry. 5 England monopolized the carrying trade of the 
world so far as she could control it, and that she did control 
it for a time the War of the American Revolution attests. 
As Virginia developed, land, therefore, became even more the 
measure of wealth and opportunity than in Old England. 
Fortunately for the future of democracy, Virginia was vast 
in area, land was cheap, and yielded abundantly to extensive 
cultivation, while out beyond the headwaters of the rivers and 
across the mountains lay the great open West. 

Apparently the English-born aristocrat was the exceptional 
immigrant to the colony. Although it is said that more than 
five hundred Virginia families of the late eighteenth century 
traced their origin to distinguished English families, the 
Virginia planter-aristocrat evolved, in the most part, from 
the successful English middle class. 6 After the first enthusi- 
asm of the gentlemen adventurers was dampened by the re- 
verses at Jamestown, the permanent settlers of the colony, 

5 Hening, op. cit., II, 471; III, Act Establishing Towns, 1705, repealed 1710; 
Wertenbaker, Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia, p. 44; Bruce, Economic History 
of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, Vol. I. Cf. Jefferson's opposition to com- 
mercialism in Virginia, Beard, Charles A., Economic Origins of Jeffersonian De- 
mocracy, 422-5. 

6 Vide Wertenbaker, Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia, 28, 61. 



4 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

financed in the main by the Virginia Company of London, 
were drawn more and more largely from two main sources: 
(i) the great independent merchant class of the English trading 
population who sought civil freedom and business advantage 
in the New World and found it in land; and (2) the more 
nondescript but not wholly unsubstantial indentured servant 
class who, in spite of the period of servitude to the planter 
demanded as the price of passage, saw for themselves in the 
bonus of fifty acres of land 7 a new economic status in life. 

The idea, then, of the wholesale transplanting of English 
aristocracy to the Old Dominion is, it would seem, largely* a 
romance based on the distinctive aristocracy Virginia evolved 
of itself as a result of the natural operation of economic law. 
A bourgeois class passed quickly into a landed class. A part 
of England's middle class, with a few representatives of the 
English gentry, gained advantage first through land, later 
through negro slavery, and finally through shutting off com- 
petition and retarding the rise of a rival commercial class. 
Virginia may truly be said to have evolved its aristocracy of 
land and its class of dependent poor. 

This new aristocracy fortified itself by intermarriage as 
did the aristocracy of the Old World. A spirit of family pride, 
the desire to found a family and maintain and perpetuate 
property, laid the foundations of Virginia's social and political 
system. Fathers wished to bequeath not only their property 
but even political office to their sons. Family became a basis 
of class, and family connection, a basis for that proprietary 
spirit with which Virginians have always regarded their state 
and their kin. The present practice of tracing one's kin to 
remote degrees is reminiscent of this early caste spirit. 

The products from Virginia opened a new and fertile field 
to English commercialism; the African negro slave offered 
a new class for exploitation. With the introduction of slavery 
as a substitute for service under the old wage or apprentice- 
ship system, Virginia, of course, did not reflect seventeenth- 
century English life. Before the negro came in profitable 
numbers to the colony, however, white labor was imported 
from Old England by the London Company. The inden- 
tured servant, drawn from all classes of English society, came 

7 Beverley, Robert, History of Virginia, 1722, 238. 



The Colonial Social System 5 

in great numbers as tobacco became commercially important 
and demanded extensive farming. As these servants finished 
their indenture they were free, if financially able, to buy land 
or to go into voluntary service. When the negro was intro- 
duced the white servant was not able to compete with him. 
The negro was permanent, cheaper, more tractable, better 
able to withstand the exigencies of climate and to do the 
work required in the fields. As the number of negroes in- 
creased there could be no basis of competition or of labor 
equality. The key to success and to self-respect lay in the 
ownership of land or in migration to the West. In this great 
region groups of colonists such as the Germans of the lower 
Shenandoah Valley, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of the 
Southside and Southwest, and the Huguenots of Piedmont had 
established themselves. Many of those in the eastern counties 
who did not acquire land pushed into Piedmont or passed over 
the mountains into Transylvania and Trans-Alleghany. 

A type of selection operated to sift the socially fit from the 
naturally "poor." The well-to-do, freed from labor and 
detail by slave-service and disciplined by noblesse oblige, 
became a class well trained in leadership. The indolent and 
less competent sank into a slavery of poverty and social in- 
efficiency and became, in fact, a nucleus of the traditional 
"poor white" 8 of Old Virginia. The gradual evolution of 
poor laws, or rather modifications of the English Statute of 
Artificers, the Statute for the Relief of the Poor, 1562, and the 
Statute of 1 60 1, indicates a growing class of the "poor" that 
looked to the colony, and, in the early days of the common- 
wealth, to the state, for vocational training, for the means of 
reading and writing, and, at times, for maintenance in adult 
years. The odious distinction between the "rich" and the 
"poor" and the paternal attitude of the rich toward the 
dependent lower class, so characteristic of the English social 
system, became deeply rooted in the customary thinking of 
both classes and ran well into the nineteenth century. New 
demands would come with the development of a new social 
class, an independent, self-conscious middle class of free 
land-owning farmers, too small even now in some of the South- 

8 Vide Washington, Henry A., Social System of Virginia, in Southern Literary 
Messenger, 1848, 70; also Wertenbaker, op. cit., 146. 



6 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

ern states. Virginia's part in the American Revolution, 
it will be remembered, was largely fomented among the "back- 
woods" of Piedmont and "New" Virginia, where the small, 
independent farmer had already found a place. Patrick 
Henry was representative of this democracy and Thomas 
Jefferson, in his crusade to hasten the day of a new political 
era, found his inspiration in this class. 

Education in colonial Virginia reflected the social philosophy 
and safeguarded the economic-social interests upon which the 
plantation system was built. The Established Church of 
England and the Colonial Assembly administered the educa- 
tional and civil affairs of the colony. Those who could afford 
it retained tutors in their families. This was the most ap- 
proved practice among the well-to-do down to the time of the 
Revolution. Under the patronage of the Church certain 
parishes supported Latin grammar schools. It cannot be 
said, however, that even the majority of the parishes had such 
schools, as the tutorial system and the great distances between 
plantations combined to make this institution unnecessary 
and impracticable. Sporadic private English neighborhood 
schools later appeared and became known in the country dis- 
tricts as the "Old Field" Schools. The "poor" — children of 
indigent parents, orphans of all classes left without property 
— were given a practical education appropriate to their social 
station through apprenticeship to a master of one of the 
trades. The state gave little concern to "literary" education 
except to exact a guarantee from communities that all teachers 
should be sound in the doctrines of the Church and safe sub- 
jects of the Crown. 9 Except for certain statutes governing 
the College of William and Mary, practically all legislation on 
public education was in approval of free school foundations 
or in the regulation of apprenticeship. 10 In the four years 
1679-83, Surrey County Court alone bound out more than 
fifty apprentices under indentures providing for their edu- 
cation. 11 There were, when Berkeley made his misleading 
statement about Virginia "free" schools, at least seven free or 

9 Vide p. 106. 

10 Vide Knight, E. W., Sewanee Review, January, 1916; Hening, Statutes, 
1,261,336-7; 11,298; 111,375; IV, 212,482; V, 449 n\; VI, 32,475; VIII, 376. 

11 Bruce, Philip, Institutional History of Virginia, I, 310; also Economic His- 
tory of Virginia, I, chaps, IX, X. An excellent example of the administration 



The Colonial Social System 7 

charity school foundations for the poor established to supple- 
ment the educational provisions of the apprenticeship acts. 12 
The practice of apprenticing children for specific training 
extended to the wealthy. No less a Virginian than Colonel 
John Carter orders in his will of January 3, 1669, that his son 
Robert (King Carter) in his minority be 

"well educated for the use of his estate, and he is to have a man or youth 
servant bought for him that hath been brought up in the Latin school and 
that he (the servant) shall constantly tend upon him, not only to teach him 
his books, either in English or Latin, according to his capacity (for my will 
is that he shall learn both Latin and English, and to write), but also to 
preserve him from harm and from doing evil. My executors to allow my 
wife for her sons education 10 pounds per annum and in case my wife put 
her son out apprentice his portion to bind him is to be paid." 13 

In the case of the "poor," the services of a youth were given 
for several years to a master workman, who in return was 
obligated to teach him his trade, the three r's, and to make him 
God-fearing and law-abiding; to furnish him, in short, with 
three sets of habits valuable to a poor man. Thus, as Hugh 
Jones said in 1724, the colony was " never tormented with 
vagrants. When there is a numerous family of poor children 
the vestry takes care to bind them out apprentices till they 
are able to maintain themselves with labor." 14 

Princess Anne County records reveal this means of edu- 
cating its poor children. On March 2, 171 2, Samuel Shepherd 
petitioned the court for 

"Liberty to Erect a Schoole on Ye Courthouse for common Benefitt 
which upon consideracion of ye advantage y't may arrive from ye same it is 
ordered accordingly, provided he build the same as ffar as he cann from ye 
Church and Courthouse. . . it is ye Judgm't of this court y't he have 
Liberty to keep School in ye Court House till a school house be built." 15 

of this system is to be found in the Princess Anne Co. Records, May i, 171 7, re- 
printed in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, II, 345: "Ordered that ye 
Sheriff Sumon George Smyth to the next Court to answere the Complaint of his 
apprentice Rich'd Williams & Shew ye court Reasons why he does not Teach him 
to read as by indenture he is oblig'd." At a Court held June 5, 1717: "George 
Smyth being Som'd to this Court to answere the complaint of his apprentice 
Richard Williams & upon his appearing and promising to put ye said apprentice 
forthwith to Schoole & to doe his true Endeavour to teach him his trade ye Court 
doe order ye s'd Rich'd home to live with his master ye remaining part of his time by 
indenture." 

12 Bruce, Institutional History of Virginia, I, 357-61. 

13 Extract, will, Col. John Carter, Lancaster Court House, recorded Jan. 9 
1722, cited in Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, II, 229. 

14 Jones, Hugh, The Present State of Virginia, 309. 

15 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, III, 193, communicated by 
Edward W. James. 



8 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

In 1 716 the same court ordered: 

" George Shurly petitioning for Liberty and Lycence for his Servant Peter 
Taylor to keep Schoole in the Court house jury roome & ye Court thinking 
ye same to be a reasonable and usual practice doe order that he have Liberty 
as aforesaid, he taking due care to keep ye benches &c. in such good order 
as they are at present in." 16 

It is common knowledge that despite Berkeley's remark, 
Virginia, as an infant colony, saw the need of free, if not com- 
mon schools. The short-lived school at Charles City, destroyed 
in 1622, was a free school. From the time of the bequest of 
Benjamin Syms, 1634, it was a common practice among Vir- 
ginians, as it was among pious English gentlemen everywhere, 
to remember the education of the poor in their wills. Robert 
Beverley, in 1703, leads one to believe that these legacies 
were very numerous and were in many cases "a handsome 
maintenance to a master." Mr. Bruce, in his recent social 
studies of the colony, lists the more important of these foun- 
dations. 17 

In addition to those cited by Mr. Bruce, the provisions 
of several other wills may be given here as typical of the spirit 
of the colony. John FarnerTold, an Anglican minister of 
Fairfield parish in Northumberland County in 1702, left 

"one hundred acres ... for the maintenance of a free school to be called 
Winchester schoole for fower o' five poore children belonging to ye parish 
& to be taught gratis & have their dyett and lodging and washing, & when 
they can read the Bible & write a legible hand to dismiss them & take 
in more ... for further encouragement of a school master I give dyett, 
lodging and washing, 500 pounds of tobacco & a horse, Bridle and Saddle 
to ride on during his stay. : . . Item what school books I have in my study 
I leave for ye benefit of ye schoole." 18 

In the will of Daniel Hornby, a merchant tailor of Rich- 
mond County, "20 pounds a year for five years is left to sup- 
port a Latin master who should teach ten children gratis as 
a condition of the bequest." 19 Humphrey Hill of King and 
Queen County, St. Stephen's Parish, in 1775 left £500, the 
interest on which was "to be annually paid to such school- 

16 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, III, 193, communicated by Ed- 
ward W. James. 

17 Bruce, op. cit., I, 350-60: Syms', 1636; Capt. Moon's, 1655; King's, 1669; 
Eaton's, 1689; Ed. Moseley's, 1721; Richard Russell's, 1721; Hugh Lee's, 1652; 
William Gordon's, 1685; et al. 

18 William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, XVII, 245; also 
VI, 73- 

^ Ibid., XVII, 246. 



The Colonial Social System g 

master as shall teach one or more children whose parents are 
unable to pay for the instruction." 20 The present Marriot 
High School of St. Stephen's Parish, King and Queen County, 
was built several years ago with the residue of the bequest 
made about this time by the widow of Captain Marriot of 
Bewdley. The original bequest was one thousand acres of 
land, near St. Stephen's Church, to be divided into ten farms, 
the rents to be devoted to the education of poor children. 21 
One of Nansemond County's early free school funds came from 
the will of John Yeates, Sept. 18, 1731, who gave the rent 
of his land and the hire of his slaves to help keep his church in 
repair and pay the yearly wages of a schoolmaster. In other 
items of the will, his library and a sum of £10 for other books 
were given the free schools he had made possible. 22 William 
Monroe, 1767, of Orange, left an estate of £20,000, 23 and 
the Rev. Samuel Sanford, 1710, 24 of Accomac, a fund, each 
for the encouragement of education in his respective county. 
In running through old wills one frequently finds provision 
for free schools as an alternative in case the beneficiary die 
without issue or before the will is probated. These old wills 
are mute evidences of the early colonial free school idea. 

Thus the English laissez-faire policy upon which the colony's 
social-economic system was built extended to its educational 
system. The socially competent looked after their own affairs 
and later fought any change in principle of government which 
forced them to give up this privilege of initiative. Vagrancy 
and the burden of pauperism were carefully guarded against. 
The socially incompetent, the poor, were educated as a- pro- 
tection to established society, taught " to maintain themselves 
with labor." 

In the transition from colony to commonwealth, the free, 
common school must be slowly and painfully evolved. As 
long as the ideal of worth was the land-bond, two classes — 
the Rich and the Poor — -were inevitable. The free school 
for all classes could not come until the state assumed the 

20 Ibid., 246. 

21 From a personal letter from Dr. Bernard Walker, born about 1825 in St. 
Stephen's Parish, and familiar with the operation of this fund and its intent. 

_ 22 Virginia School Report, 1885, Part Third, 230, full text of the original 
will and the incorporation by the state, 1803, are reprinted here. 
23 Ibid., 117. 2i Ibid., 49. 



io The Free School Idea in Virginia 

responsibility of popular education as something more than 
"a pious performance" or a means of protecting society 
against vagrancy. The growth of commercial interests must 
break down the dual social system and give rise to a virile 
commons. Moreover, the Virginia gentleman's inherent love 
for English institutions must give way to the larger, newer 
conception implied in our modern, locally controlled, non- 
sectarian common free school, — the fruit of America's own 
experiment with the ideal of political democracy. 

One should not look for radical institutional changes, for they 
did not come in the other American states. The history of the 
modern free school idea in post-revolutionary Virginia is a his- 
tory of the same bitterly contested but progressive evolution 
as in the other states. The Virginia aristocrat was, perhaps, 
no less a "wild democrat" or more careful of the rights of his 
own class, than the large tax-payers of New York, Massachu- 
setts, or Connecticut. All of the original states, during the 
early formation of the Union, were dominated more or less by 
the religio-aristocratic conceptions of school government and 
support, conceptions common to the thought and practice of 
Old England. Virginia fought with the other states the same 
battles for the democratization of her institutions, and by the 
time of the Civil War had evolved the foundations, at least, 
of free schools. And this remarkable progress was hampered 
at all times by the economic burdens of negro slavery, by the 
social system that slavery entailed, by a sectionalism which 
Virginia's peculiar land conformation determined from the 
outset, and finally by a dramatic political controversy over 
ways and means of realizing a democratic state, the first 
fruit of which was the persistence of customary thought and 
the defeat of a concerted school legislation which might have 
placed the Old Dominion first among the free school states. 

The object of this study, therefore, is to trace the progress 
of the free school idea as it evolved out of earlier English poor 
law provisions, apprenticeship, and free scholarships in the 
private schools to that high-water mark of ante-bellum edu- 
cational legislation, "The Schools for the Education of All 
Classes," 1850-60, in which, in a few counties at least, all the 
the children of the rich, the bourgeoisie, and the "poor white" 
could be taught in common without prejudice. This was 



The Colonial Social System n 

accomplished through the spread of the Literary Fund "Poor" 
Schools under the Act of 1818, for the definition of the word 
"poor" is eventually widened to include a large percentage 
of the state's growing middle class, originally excluded under 
the charity school act. The natural course of this evolution 
is through the widespread faith in the voluntaristic movements 
for the promotion of elementary education, such as the Lan- 
casterian, Infant, and Sunday schools, which in 1818-25 were 
subsidized by the state and which made possible the system 
of free schools before the Civil War. Notwithstanding the 
failure of the friends of democracy to unite on a common 
plan of state school government — one of the great reasons 
for the retardation of the free school idea — Virginia's present 
organization is not a gift -of Reconstruction but the fulfill- 
ment of those county common school experiments which in 
1859 may have been seen in every geographical subdivision 
of the state. 



CHAPTER II 

EARLY PROPOSALS AND PROVISIONS FOR FREE PRIMARY SCHOOLS. 
THE BILLS OF 1 7 79 AND 1 796. JEFFERSON'S IDEA OF THE 
PLACE OF EDUCATION IN A DEMOCRACY 

The Virginia Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowl- 
edge submitted on June 8, 1779, by Jefferson, as part of the 
Report of the Revisors of the state code, 1 is generally accepted 
as the first American proposal for a modern state school system. 
This report was not acted upon until after the close of the war, 
when fifty-six of the one hundred twenty-six provisions were 
written into the state code. The provision for education was 
one of those more radical departures from colonial practice, — 
manumission and the education of negro slaves being another, 
— which was not accepted. The temper of the war legislature, 
however, was more after Jefferson's own heart. Evidently, 
while formulating the new code, he presented his ideal of edu- 
cation in a free state to his colleagues in the House, for in 
a letter to George Washington, in 1786, he said of his bill: 
"I never saw one received with more enthusiasm than that 
was in the year, 1778, by the House of Delegates, who ordered 
it printed; and it seems afterwards that nothing but extreme 
distress of our resources prevented its being carried into 
execution during the war." 2 

In his autobiography Jefferson makes himself very clear in 
discussing the proposals for constitutional revision. By his 
bills for the abolition of primogeniture, entails, and for reli- 
gious liberty and public schools, "every fibre of antient and 
future aristocracy would be eradicated . . . and a foundation 
laid for a government truly republican." In particular the 
school bill would guarantee that democracy, i.e., the poor, 
would "maintain themselves and exercise with intelligence 
their part in self-government without the violation of a single 

1 Thomas Jefferson and George Wythe, Report of the Revisors, LXXXIX; 
Ford, Letters of Jefferson, II, 220. 

2 Henderson, Jefferson on Public Education, vi. 



Jefferson and Education in a Democracy 13 

natural right of any individual citizen." 3 To Jefferson the 
danger of perpetuating a satisfied, inert peasantry was im- 
minent. His first effort was to secure to the citizen protection 
against property, equality before the law, and freedom of 
opportunity; but the security of these rights depended upon 
the development of capacity for community initiative and 
collective self-government. His theory of common schools 
found a place in his larger scheme for a truly democratic state. 
Popular education would furnish the means of enlightenment 
and suggest the mechanics of collective expression which 
would help "lay the ax to the root of psuedo-aristocracy." 
The administration of common schools became, therefore, 
quite as important a factor in the education of the Virginia 
people as the course of study or schools themselves. 

The Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge 
embodied this principle. It attempted to provide a vertical 
system of schools starting with the primary school and, with 
the academy and district college, culminating in the University 
of William and Mary. Such a scheme would mean, of course, 
the eradication of the dual, parallel systems for the education 
of the rich and the poor characteristic of colonial policy. The 
cornerstone of the plan was a township or ward system of 
elementary schools where every free white child of both sexes 
might be instructed gratuitously, for three years at least, 
in reading, writing, arithmetic, and the elements of European 
and American history. 

His basis of school administration was to be the community 
as a popular body. According to the bill, each county should 
proceed to elect aldermen who should divide the county into 
districts — or wards for the town — corresponding to the 
early colonial "hundred" or the New England township. 
In each hundred the electors should be called together to select 
a convenient site for a schoolhouse, to be built in common by 
them, to which all the children of the neighborhood should 
be sent. Every ten schools should be supervised by an 
"overseer" or superintendent whose further duty it would 
be "to introduce a general course of reading and instruction 
for his schools." William and Mary, the head of the proposed 
system, was to direct the work of the academies or secondary 

3 Ford, Jefferson, I, 68, 69; IX, 427. 



14 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

schools. These grammar schools and academies were to be 
established by the joint effort of several counties; if necessary- 
each county electing a visitor to act with William and Mary in 
their regulation and conduct. 

It may be noted that while Thomas Jefferson accepted edu- 
cation as a proper object of political activity, he threw the 
weight of his influence against the idea that education is a 
function of the state as a central entity. He aimed, as a 
consistent political individualist, to bring his school system 
nearer to the people in the several communities; to put the 
control and discipline of the proposed system beyond the 
interference of the state, and, in the case of the peoples' primary 
schools, beyond the reach of Church, State, William and Mary, 
or any type of centralized power. He wanted no mere exten- 
sion of poor law provision; his motive was not merely philan- 
thropic. Popular education was to him a means of fulfilling 
his theory of government, of insuring the direction of govern- 
ment by the governed; an opportunity to provide an intelli- 
gent electorate; even more particularly, to provide a highly 
selected leadership drawn from the brains and virtue of the 
whole community rather than from a landed aristocracy. 
He wished to draw the power and leadership of the state more 
largely from the small farmer class and thus diffuse more 
generally the control of government. 4 

In a letter to J. C. Cabell, Jefferson speaks of having written 
Adams of his proposal for "culling from every condition of 
our people the natural aristocracy of talent and virtue and of 
preparing it by education at the puplic expense, for the care 
of public interests." This defense of democracy against an 
aristocracy of land is the explanation for that section of his 
plan providing for the " recognition and training of genius." 
It was to be the duty of the overseer "to select each year the 
most promising boy of the hundred school for two years' 
free tuition and board in the nearest district high school 
or academy." From these "Foundationers" twenty of the 
brightest and best, virtually the flowering genius of the state, 
were to be sent to the University of William and Mary for any 
courses they might select. Opportunity was to be open to 
all who by superior promise deserved recognition, to the end 

4 Cf. Beard, op. tit., 422. 



Jefferson and Education in a Democracy 15 

that "the genius of the common people was not to be lost to 
the state." 5 

Subsequently, it seems, Jefferson decided as a tactical move 
to separate the provisions for primary schools and for higher 
schools. He proposed a second scheme in which William 
and Mary, as the head of his educational system, is supplanted 
by a new institution, without antecedents, independent of the 
Church, and built according to his own ideals. On January 18, 
1800, he writes Joseph Priestley: "We wish to establish in the 
upper and healthier country a University on a plan so broad, 
liberal, and modern as to be worth patronizing with public 
support. ... It has been the subject of consultation among 
the ablest characters of our state who only wait for a plan." 6 

Although Jefferson's larger plan was not incorporated into 
the state constitution, a later bill, the Act of 1796, 7 calling 
for an "aldermanic" system of local primary schools actually 
passed the General Assembly. This law provided local tax 
or community subscription but did not mention state subsidy. 
It passed the Assembly but, unhappily, not till it was amended 
by leaving its adoption and operation to the initiative of the 
county courts. This amendment indicates that as the courts 
had enforced what "free" education the state had hitherto 
provided, it was deemed expedient they should continue to. 8 

A demand on the part of the people for such a system must 
have resulted in its establishment, but so far as available 
records show, no petitions were presented to the courts nor 
were any meetings held to consider the law. There were 

5 Jefferson makes the statement less formally elsewhere as follows: "Twenty 
of the best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish annually and be instructed at 
public expense so far as the grammar schools go. At the end of six years one-half 
of these shall go to William and Mary, etc." Notes on Virginia, VIII, 388. Ford, 
ed. Ill, 251. Mr. Jefferson was interested in providing an intelligent, trained 
leadership as well as an enlightened electorate. Genius (the supernormal child) 
was too important an asset to democracy to be neglected for the mass. He in- 
sisted that it is poor social economy to exhaust the resources of the state in edu- 
cating the mediocre and at the expense of the exceptional and gifted child. 

6 Ford, VII, 407. 

7 House Journal, Dec. 22, 1796. An Act to Establish Public Schools — "in 
order that stability of government depend upon liberal, humane, enlightened, 
minds ... to lay the first foundation of a system of Education which may tend 
to produce those desirable purposes, etc." 

8 "On provision," says Jefferson "that the expense of these schools should be 
borne by the inhabitants of the county. . . . This would throw on wealth the 
education of the poor, and the justices, being generally of the more wealthy class, 
were unwilling to incur the burden." Ford, I, 67. 



1 6 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

certain inherent reasons besides a general inertia, parsimony, 
and distrust by the county magistrates of so new a prin- 
ciple, why Virginia did not adopt this law. Here, as in all 
the other states, local taxation of property for the support 
of community schools, entirely free and open to rich and 
poor alike, was not a popular measure. Two centuries of 
apprenticeship and poor laws had not developed a strong 
enough demand for the new type of education to overcome the 
dread of cost in taxes or to enforce the acceptance of the 
principle that the state should compel a man to tax himself 
for the education of his neighbor's children. Unlike the New 
England states, Virginia lacked the popular local assemblies 
by which the people might be informed, interested, or stirred 
to concerted action. Massachusetts, in 1790, had a population 
of 378,787 in 8,327 square miles; while Virginia had only 
748,308 white population scattered over 64,284 square miles of 
territory and organized in such a way as to necessitate, or, at 
least, to continue the delegation of government to the control 
of the few. Even had the people at large understood and 
accepted the ideals of Jefferson the means of stirring their 
representatives to accept them and cast them into law was 
not at hand. 9 "The Voice of the People was not heard as in 
the New England township." There was no means of harmon- 
izing the interests of a diverse population. The very conditions 
and atmosphere of rural life helped promote satisfaction with 
things as they were, a state of mind so far as public education 
was concerned in which, again, the majority of the original 
states shared. 

This isolation of country life was a great stumbling block 
to new primary school legislation. For after all Virginia was 
supporting a system of tutorial and private schools, the cost 
of which must have far surpassed, as, indeed, Jefferson points 
out, the cost of common schools equally distributed to all 
parts of the state. With rapid changes in school population 
the difficulty of finding centrally located sites and of main- 
taining permanent buildings was a retarding factor in primary 
school development, but undoubtedly, the greater difficulty 

9 This was clear to Madison, Marshall, Lee, Pendleton, Patrick Henry, and other 
Virginia leaders of the Revolution who foresaw that a smaller unit was essential 
if self-government was to become a fact. 



Jefferson and Education in a Democracy 17 

lay in the provincial satisfaction of the masses with things as 
they were and in the lack of a medium through which leaders 
might reach and rouse them to the needs of a new era. 

It is easier, it seems, to wrest equality of rights from vested 
privilege than to force democracy to exercise and protect 
those rights after they are attained. Jefferson clearly saw 
that so long as the people were not able to register their will 
intelligently, democracy would remain a sham. The success 
of popular government he constantly insisted hung upon two 
hooks: (1) public education and (2) the division of the county 
into wards or small political units. 10 The people must be 
given the means of popular action as well as the means of en- 
lightenment that must be back of all political action. He feared 
government in the hands of the few and wished to organize 
the scattered population on the basis already organized, of the 
militia companies, into "self-governing little republics within 
the republic of the county." He deplored the fact that the 
masses played so small a part in the government of the state 
and we have his solution — cooperation. "How powerfully," 
he writes his friend and agent, Joseph C. Cabell, in 18 16, 
"did we feel the energy of this organization in the case of the 
Embargo! I felt the foundation of the government shaken 
under my feet by the New England township. ... In the 
South and West there could be called a Court-House meeting 
to which only the drunken loungers could come, the distance 
being too great for the good and industrious to come readily." u 

As the colony spread from its cradle in the James River, 
certain geographical factors determined its history. They 
were to make for mutually independent social units and sooner 
or later to give rise to conflicting ethnic, religious, and finally 
diverse economic interests. The difficulty in harmonizing 
these interests, in attaining a working basis of " like-minded- 
ness," obstructed measures of material internal improvement 

10 Randolph, Early History of the University of Virginia as contained in the 
letters of Thomas Jefferson and Joseph C. Cabell, 48, 53. 

11 Ibid., 48, 53. The county unit, however, was no accident in Virginia. It 
had an economic origin in the tobacco industry and in the colony's early non- 
commercial policy. It was the result of soil, climatic and topographical conditions, 
just as the New England "township" was largely the result of theocratic-social 
organization, soil unsuited to extensive farming, and Indian troubles. The colony 
early attempted political organization by Hundreds but abandoned them as its 
economic future became determined. Vide Randolph, op. tit., 18, 19; also 
Tucker, George, Life of Jefferson, II, 352-5. 



1 8 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

in the state till the separation of West Virginia brought a 
degree of homogeneity. 

The Eastern Shore — comprising two large counties — is 
separated entirely from the body of the state by the wide 
waters of the Chesapeake Bay. An eastern and western 
division of the state was made by "The Great Barrier" — the 
Alleghany and Blue Ridge Mountain systems with the inter- 
vening Valley of the Shenandoah. As a Norfolk newspaper 
correspondent 12 once said, this barrier was "a backbone of 
from one to two hundred miles of mountains running in parallel 
ridges, northeast and southwest across her [Virginia's]] entire 
limits ... a summit level of 2000 feet . . . which no other 
people on the continent no more than Virginians have yet 
overcome." The eastern counties were subdivided by the 
Potomac, the Rappahannock, the York, the Piankatank, 
the James, and the Roanoke rivers into seven peninsulas 
running in parallel lines from the Blue Ridge to the Chesa- 
peake Bay. These peninsulas formed mutually independent 
social groups. Along these river valleys were all the elements 
that would support a people, — rich lowlands, waterfalls, 
timber, grazing lands, and the rich mineral resources of the 
mountains. They furnished a ready outlet to the east for the 
produce of these counties, while the Shenandoah Valley found 
no outlet for its products except to the north along the natural 
course of its river, a tributary of the Potomac. The territory 
lying beyond the Alleghany was forced to buy and sell in the 
markets of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, to Pittsburg, 
Cincinnati, and even New Orleans. 

The sectionalism that these geographical features con- 
tributed to was intensified by variant sources of immigration. 
The English, the Scotch, the Scotch-Irish, the German, and the 
French Huguenots poured into the colony during the eight- 
eenth century and tended to congregate in one or the other 
great natural divisions of the state. At a later period the 
Valley and trans-Alleghany received heavy immigration from 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the North. Tidewater, Pied- 
mont, or "back" country, the Shenandoah Valley, the South- 
west, and what is now West Virginia became sooner or later 

12 Wealth, Resources and Hopes of the State of Virginia, Reprint from Daily 
Southern Argus, Norfolk, 1857, p. 7. 



Jefferson and Education in a Democracy 19 

contentious political entities. Early legislative debates re- 
flect the interests of these natural divisions, and the general 
history of the state may easily be read in this configuration. 13 
Slavery soon separated the people of Tidewater and the western 
counties as it did the North and South at a later day. As 
early as December 17, 1794, Jefferson, in writing to William 
Branch Giles, said, "Make friends with the trans- Alleghanians, 
they are gone if you do not." 14 

The wealth and influence — maintained, it was charged 
by the western county delegates in the House, by undue 
representation in the Assembly, 15 — lay in the Tidewater coun- 
try; that is, in the lower valleys of the James, the Rappa- 
hannock, and the Potomac rivers. The large slave-holders 
and the large estates were here. As the population spread 
westward the feudal aspect of society became less and less 
marked. The eastern counties, predominantly English, were, 
for the most part, traditionally adherents of the Church of 
England. Piedmont, early protestant against Tidewater and 
the lower Valley, was preponderantly Scotch-Presbyterian. 
The chief antagonists of the Episcopal Church in Tidewater 
were the Baptist societies, representing a political and ecclesi- 
astical protest against the old order. The Valley 16 and Trans- 

13 Vide Ambler, Charles H., Sectionalism in Virginia, 1776-1861, for such an 
interpretation. u Ford, op. cit., VI, 55. 

15 Vide Alexandria Herald, June 3, 18 16, for sectional differences and unequal 
representation in the Assembly. An address "To the People of the Commonwealth 
of Virginia," signed by twenty-two men from four northern counties and six West 
Virginia counties represents that: 

"20 counties in Tidewater contain 53,443 white population. 

"20 counties in Upper Country contain 250,323 white population, yet each 
have the same number of Delegates (two for each county). 

"49 counties adjacent in the east and south have a majority of the whole num- 
ber of representatives in the House. These counties contain only 204,766 white 
population, which is less than half the population of the state by 72,138 souls. 
In the Senate the inequality is worse. . . . Tidewater, with a population of 
162,712, has 7 senators. The total number of senatorial districts is 24. By the 
law of 1792 the territory west of the Blue Ridge was divided into 4 senatorial dis- 
tricts. It contains 3/5 the area of the whole state and has 212,036 population. 
The whole population of the state is 553,809. It follows that the country west of 
Blue Ridge is entitled to 9 Senators instead of 4, etc." 

16 Fredericksburg Virginia Herald, August 13, 181 7. A traveler says: "The 
Valley formed by the Blue Ridge and North Mountain is settled principally by 
Germans or their descendants whose manners are not calculated to please a man 
from the lower country. The land is pretty equally divided, the farms small and 
in the highest state of cultivation. The inhabitants are honest, industrious and 
frugal to an extreme. Luxury and vice are strangers among them." Vide also 
Wayland, The German Element in the Valley of Virginia, Virginia Magazine 
of History and Biography, IX, X. 



20 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

montane Virginia, as has been said, made other distinct 
geographical units, and were, therefore, independent in social 
composition and in tendencies toward independent social 
constitution. 

Virginia, it may be truthfully said, was a unit in name 
only. It became in fact a people segregated into many sec- 
tions, and hopelessly divided by the Great Barrier; the East 
and West growing daily apart in distribution and character 
of wealth, in religion and customs. The very geography, 
as a contemporary thinker put it, tended "to diffuse popu- 
lation and capital and prevent concentration of both." 17 
Unity of purpose was impossible without unity of need and 
a common practice. Not only was it difficult to get concerted 
action, it was difficult to secure agreement on pressing legis- 
lation touching the large and material enterprises for internal 
improvement. The same writer aptly summarizes this whole 
phase of the discussion: 

"The causes of delay in beginning and completing her works were ob- 
structions of an extraordinary character, not hindering another state, new 
or old. Her social and territorial conformation not only segregated her 
communities but detached her plans of public improvement in separate 
and competing schemes: they wanted unity entirely and concentration." 18 

This was the Virginia — 748,308 people scattered over 
64,284 square miles, extending from the Dismal Swamp to 
the Panhandle of the present state of West Virginia, from the 
sea to the western border of Kentucky — that Jefferson and 
his compatriots attempted to reorganize into a single, like- 
minded commonwealth, a "Republic of Virginia," as Jeffer- 
son was pleased to dream of it. It was this Virginia that he 
wished to remake politically into his ideal democratic state 
in which government would play a minimum role and aris- 
tocracy no part whatever. 

To summarize Jefferson's position it might be said that for 
nearly a half century he contended for several schemes of 
education all dominated by his fear of government, all con- 
sistent with his individualistic theory, and all involving the 
same features: 

17 Wealth, Resources and Hopes of Virginia, Reprint from Daily Southern 
Argus, Norfolk, 1857, 2. ]8 Ibid., 7. 



Jefferson and Education in a Democracy 21 

(1) A single system of schools from the primaries to the 

University that would destroy the dual system of 
the colony and close the gap between rich and poor, 
placing the talent of both at the disposal of the state 
and guaranteeing an intelligent electorate and a 
trained leadership. 

(2) Local taxation and local control of elementary educa- 

tion rather than the centralization of power which 
would spring from state subsidy, and which would, 
as he saw it, retard the progress of democracy by 
encouraging community dependence. 
The fact will always remain that the vast majority of the 
communities did not respond to this program. There is 
sound philosophy in holding, as Jefferson did, that bureaucracy 
is a poor substitute for the tyranny of kings and aristocracy 
and that centralization of authority may, even as implied in 
Rousseau's volonte generate, finally supplant liberty with pater- 
nalism. Unfortunately, in his deep-seated distrust of govern- 
ment, Jefferson failed to see that a powerless state may often 
mean helpless communities. Efficient democracy presupposes 
effective machinery for accomplishing its great purposes. The 
promotion of individualism intensifies the difficulty in creat- 
ing such machinery for public education. To expect local 
initiation from one class not sufficiently interested in education 
to pay the price or too pressed by the exigencies of pioneer 
life to build schools, and from another class already support- 
ing a system of private schools, was to confound democracy 
with inefficiency. State subsidy and centralization of school 
authority have been the chief means of perfecting a system 
of popular education and of convincing people of the value of 
taxation for it. Common schools of reasonable efficiency 
have become a fact in the state only since their administration 
has rested upon the assumption that education is a state rather 
than a local concern. 19 

Education was at a low ebb during that period after the 
Civil War when the democratic demand for a school on every 

19 Vide work of Cooperative Education Association and the Citizens' Leagues 
propaganda work of the State Department of Education, 1904-14; the enthusi- 
asm of Dr. Wm. H. Ruffner, 1870-82; Richard R. Farr, 1882-6; Gov. Andrew 
J. Montague, 1900-04; and Joseph D. Eggleston, Supt. of Public Instruction, 
1906-13, et al. 



22 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

man's farm scattered meanly equipped, frightfully neglected, 
and poorly attended schoolhouses over the state and left 
them to the tender mercies of communities, which never 
assembled for community action. Cooperation of neighbor- 
hoods in the difficult work of selecting common sites for per- 
manent schoolhouses, that must of necessity be unsatisfactory 
to many, and voluntary assessment of freeholders each year 
for the support of schools difficult to reach and not very well 
taught, was, indeed, a great demand of a people unaccus- 
tomed to collective self-expression. It would seem, therefore, 
in the light of contemporary experience, that Jefferson's in- 
sistence on an extreme decentralized school policy must have 
retarded primary school legislation and development in the 
early nineteenth century quite as much as his philosophy of 
education in a democracy may have stimulated the rising 
spirit of Jacksonianism in the West. 



CHAPTER III 

THE PHILANTHROPIC-RELIGIOUS MOTIVE IN EARLY ELEMENTARY 
EDUCATION. THE SUNDAY SCHOOL OFFERED AS A SUBSTI- 
TUTE FOR COMMON SCHOOLS 

When, in 1642, the House of Burgesses confirmed the will 
of Benjamin Syms establishing a free school, it went on record 
as encouraging " others in like pious performances." In the 
attitude thus expressed is revealed the accepted motive for 
the establishment of the Colonial American elementary free 
school. Even in New England such schools were primarily 
voluntary enterprises, impelled by the philanthropic-religious 
spirit; for though Calvinism vaguely suggested the broader 
politico-social motive of modern theory, the more customary 
philanthropic idea prevailed. Democracy was a principle 
to be learned as a child becomes acquainted with a toy which 
at first pleases him but which is beyond his manipulation, 
an ideal to be realized in the fullness of experience and experi- 
ment; and Virginia was not far behind the actual practice 
of the other states during the first decades of the Republic. 
Professor Paul Monroe has pointed out that the American 
public school system, in its nonsectarian, common, free school 
character did not find full expression until the generation 
after the Civil War. 1 

As a matter of fact, before common schools could be gener- 
ally accepted, both North and South had to be democratized. 
If, before the Civil War, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
New York made distinctive advance toward this democratic 
institution, discrimination between the children of the rela- 
tively rich and poor was almost universally maintained in 
these states till late in the century by the so-called "rate" 
bills common to the Northern states. The distinction was 
maintained in Pennsylvania and the states south of it by the 
English "charity" school system. In principle these systems 
were alike odious and were, as Charles Fenton Mercer pointed 

1 Unpublished lecture notes, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

23 



24 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

out in 1826, well calculated "to implant in early life the feel- 
ings of humiliation and dependence in one class of society 
and superiority and pride in an other . . . which are alike in- 
compatible with the future harmony and happiness of both." ia 
Characteristic English benevolence, then, motivated the 
founding of the early town " charities," the Lancasterian 
and Infant schools, the Sunday schools, and other private, 
rural, and urban educational enterprises in behalf of the Vir- 
ginia poor. The creation of the Literary Fund in 181 1, it 
will be seen, was a provision for the "Education of the Poor." 
And, as up to the time of the creation of this fund, the edu- 
cation of the -poor had been cared for largely through private 
benevolence, it is quite natural that the schools, already 
doing charity work, should have been subsidized by this fund 
rather than that a new common school system should have 
sprung full grown from the minds of a very small group of 
far-seeing political theorists. But the failure to make even 
a beginning of a state system of common schools at this point 
revitalized the aristocratic conception of education and cor- 
respondingly weakened the chances for adequate provision 
when the spirit of democracy should become strong enough 
to make its wants known. In 18 18 the idea of a public school 
system in which the state was placed in the relation of a com- 
mon mother was quite generally repudiated by the Democrats 
as a menace to individual rights and as too reminiscent of 
the abuses of government in the Old World. Likewise, in 
New York, early effort at state supervision was bitterly op- 
posed, and in 1837 Massachusetts created a state board of 
education but failed to create a state superintendent. 

ia Mercer, Charles Fenton, Discourse on Popular Education, a commencement 
address, College of New Jersey, Princeton, 1826. This Discourse, not hitherto 
included in sources of the period, is one of the most critical analyses of the early 
American common school available. C. F. Mercer, b. Fredericksburg, Va., 
July 16, 1778; d. " Aldie," his Loudoun County estate, May 4, 1858. A graduate 
of Princeton, Mr. Mercer was a Federalist in politics, serving in the state legis- 
lature in 1810-17, U. S. Congress 1818-40, and a member and temporary chair- 
man of the Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1829-30. He was an ardent 
friend of common schools, a projector and charter president of the Chesapeake 
and Ohio Canal Company, and an official and promotor of the American Coloni- 
zation Society, making a trip to Europe as late as 1853 in the interest of the 
abolition of negro slavery. He served in the War of 181 2 and later commanded 
a brigade of state militia. For his biography vide Garnett, James Mercer, — 
Biographical Sketch of Hon. Charles Fenton Mercer; William and Mary College 
Quarterly Historical Magazine, XVII, 220-23. 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 25 

At any rate the impetus for public elementary schools 
in Virginia may be found in the voluntaristic movements to 
give the poor the power to read and write, and to redeem 
them from the isolation and moral depravity of the New 
Settlements. Hence any study of the free school movement 
must take into account the enthusiasm of private enterprise 
and religious zeal. The Virginia free school system before the 
Civil War came, in fact, largely through the gradual develop- 
ment of these cooperative efforts to carry the benefits of "Eng- 
lish" education to the lower and middle classes of the state. 

The Charity and Lancasterian Schools 

The Virginia town "charity" school was much like its 
English prototype. It was generally supported by private 
subscription, sometimes by municipal endowment or small 
appropriation. Quite frequently it was aided by lottery. 
Beyond sanctioning their incorporation, the state contributed 
nothing to the success of these schools till 18 18, when, as has 
been said, they were subsidized as part of the new state "poor" 
school system established under the school statutes of that 
year. Charity schools had been established before this act in 
Norfolk, Richmond, Fredericksburg, Alexandria, Staunton, 
and, in fact, wherever there was a large enough commun- 
ity to support them. 

These schools were either given over wholly to orphan or 
charity pupils, literally "charities," or as select or private 
schools they received the poor on scholarships while other 
pupils paid tuition. The name of George Washington himself 
and of Martha, his wife, is associated with a charity school in 
Alexandria as early as 1785. In December of that year Wash- 
ington wrote the trustees of Alexandria Academy: 

" It has long been my intention to invest, at my death, £1000, in the hands 
of trustees, the interest of which is to be applied in instituting a school in 
the town of Alexandria for the purpose of educating orphan children, or the 
children of such indigent parents as are unable to give it. . . . I will, until 
my death, pay the interest thereof, to wit, £50 annually. ... It is my 
intention to apply this to that sort of education as would be most extensively 
useful to people of the lower classes of citizens, viz, reading, writing, and 
arithmetic, so as to fit them for mechanical pursuits." 2 

2 Cited by U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report 1872, 343. The Com- 
missioner points out that "Two girls were admitted upon the condition that 
Genera] Washington shall explain it to be consistent with his intentions that girls 



26 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

In April of the following year a school was opened. Every 
town had its charity school and every county attempted to 
care for its poor. Among the early statutes of incorporation 
we find that of the Male Charity School of Fredericksburg, 
December 13, 1796, empowering the mayor and commonalty 
to act as its trustees. 3 In 1808 a Female Charity School 
was established there under the same auspices. 4 A school 
of much the same character, actuated by the same spirit, 
and " aided by thirteen gentlemen," was created in 18 14 in the 
same city for "free blacks ... to impress on their hearts 
the important principles of religion, to give them such in- 
struction as will enable them to get their living in an honest 
way and prevent them running into crime." 5 

The extension of these Virginia "charities" was, as else- 
where in America and England, made possible by the economy 
and mechanical efficiency of the well-known monitorial or 
Lancasterian method of mutual instruction. Just as the 
Sunday school became a chief agency in arousing the wealthy 
country gentleman to a realization of the moral depravity 
of his poor neighbors, so the monitorial system appealed to 
the imagination of people in the towns by a certain super- 
ficial efficiency in getting results with large numbers of children 
at an incredibly low cost. 6 The Lancasterian school was 
hailed as an administrative boon, 7 a discovery of importance 

may be taught in this school." That General Washington approved the admission 
of girls is to be inferred from the fact that these were retained and others afterward 
admitted. " The school hours at that date were as follows: ' From the ist of May 
to the ist of September from 6 to 8 and from 9 to 12 a.m., and from 2 to 5 p.m.; 
and from the 15th of September to the ist of May from 9 to 12 a.m., and from 2 
to sunset.' " 

3 House Journal, Dec. 13, 1796, A Financial Report, 181 2, of this school gives 
total expenditures of $707.48: $250. to teachers; $140 board for boys; $161 for 
shoes and clothes, rent for schoolroom $33, etc. Virginia Herald, Feb. 4, 1812. 

4 Hening, III, 418 

5 Fredericksburg Virginia Herald, 1814. 

6 Lancaster, it is said, lost himself in dreamy computations of how long it would 
take to educate the world by so simple a device. Cf. article on the Lancasterian 
.'System and the Gary Schools, C. L. Robbins, New York Times, March 26, 1916. 

7 Sir Joshua Fitch, in his Educational Aims and Methods, p. 356, reprints 
an English handbill announcing a lecture by this gentleman and stating these 
'" principles " : 

ROYAL LANCASTERIAN SYSTEM OF EDUCATION 

Joseph Lancaster, the Inventor of the above system, intends to deliver a Lecture 
on its nature and advantages, at the Freemasons' Tavern, Great Queen Street, Lin- 
colns Inn Fields, on the Evening of the Day called Monday, the ist of Seventh 
Month, (July) 181 1. 

The peculiar advantages of this system are that one master (often a lad from 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 27 

to mankind. In its economy and simplicity of operation 
it showed the way to the establishment of schools that would 
run themselves, and without public taxation, or at least with 
a minimum of . tax. It aroused enthusiasm among people 
hitherto indifferent. Virginia cities were among the first 
to interest themselves in this new scheme of cheap popular 
education that answered their need but did no violence to 
custom. Here, again, Virginia showed only a natural desire, 
and a desire characteristic of early Americans generally, to 
have schools but to avoid public taxation for them. As early 
as 1809, a Richmond paper publishes "a plan for the education 
of 10,000 poor children by establishing schools in country 
towns and villages, for uniting works of industry with useful 
knowledge." 8 

The Virginia Lancasterian schools seem to have taken their 
inspiration from Mr. Robert Ould, an American disciple and 
personal representative of Joseph Lancaster, who opened 
an approved school of the method at Georgetown, District 
of Columbia, in the fall of 181 1. In Child's first report he 
speaks of the interest his school is arousing in the South. 
"Even the natives of the Carolinas, of the Alleghany or Blue 
Ridge of Mountains, show their delight and strong desire to 
have schools established among them." 9 In the same report 
he says, "Alexandria became alike interested with the merits, 
of the system . . . accordingly a house was erected and a 
teacher qualified. The establishment contains 150 children 
and is capable of accommodating 360. . . . Shortly after 
a lady from the same town nobly came forward to become 
acquainted with the principles of the institution. This lady's 



fourteen to eighteen years of age) can be rendered competent to the government 
of a school containing from 200 to 1000 Scholars. The Expense of Education for 
each individual will also diminish in proportion as the Number under the care 
of the same master increases. 

The System of Order and Tuition serves in lieu of experience and discretion in 
the Teacher, whose qualification consists only of a small degree of Elementary 
Knowledge. Five Hundred children may spell at the same time. A whole school, 
however large, may read and spell from the same book. The Master will be wholly 
relieved from the duty of Tuition and have for his charge that of frequent in- 
spection of the Progress made by the Pupils. 

8 Richmond Enquirer, May 23 and 26, 1809, an exhaustive review under the 
great caption, school! school! school! — of the Lancasterian System as pub- 
lished by Edinburgh Review, 1809. 

9 Report, Royal Lancasterian Institution for Education of the Poor, 181 1, 13. 



28 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

school contained near 300 scholars and is capable of containing 

45°." io 

In addition to these two in Alexandria, Ould reports in 
181 1, that Petersburg, Winchester, King William County, 
and Fredericksburg had established monitorial schools. The 
Virginia Herald in 181 2 speaks of the establishment in Fred- 
ericksburg of such a school, where "both boys and girls are 
instructed together and those who are able pay a small tui- 
tion." In 1814 "some 20 gentlemen built what is called 
'The Female Lancasterian School' which was soon abandoned 
through lack of funds." 11 An account is given in 18 15 of 
a joint Masonic Hall and Charity School. "The first floor," 
it is stated, "is devoted to the charity school in which the 
Lancasterian system is pursued, the second floor to the Masonic 
lodge." 12 An issue of the same paper prints the address of 
the Rev. Samuel Low of the Episcopal Church of Norfolk 
at the cornerstone-laying of "The Norfolk Lancasterian 
School, founded by the Common Council of Norfolk Borough, 
August 1, 181 7." 13 

Efforts were begun on October 14, 181 5, to establish by public 
subscription a charity school in Richmond. On June 27, 18 16, 
the cornerstone of a Lancasterian school was laid, bearing 
the inscription: "Dedicated to the Elementary Principles 
of Education, founded by the municipality and worthy, liberal- 
minded citizens. The children of the Wealthy are taught on 
most moderate terms and those of the Poor, gratis." u In 
the dedication address on this occasion it was said that "one 
of the distinguishing signs of the times is that the injunction 
of the Messiah, that the poor have the gospel preached unto 
them," was being fulfilled in the charity schools and Bible 
societies. The speaker, referring to the great school legislature 
of 181 5-16, says further: 

"At this time, particularly, the value of this improvement cannot be 
too highly estimated when we consider that the patriotic and enlightened 
legislators of Virginia who lately increased the Literary Fund will probably 
in a short time establish public schools for the education of the children of 

10 Robert Ould claims this latter school was the "first female Lancasterian on 
her own foundation in America." Report, Royal Lancasterian Institution for 
Education of the Poor, 1811, 13. 

11 Ibid., Virginia Herald, 1814. 13 Ibid., August 1, 1817. 

12 Ibid., July 15, 1815. 14 Richmond Enquirer, June 29, 1816. 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 29 

the poor throughout the commonwealth. When this auspicious event shall 
take place the Lancasterian teachers will be the most useful and efficient 
agents necessary to the accomplishment of the wise view of the General 
Assembly." 

Joseph Lancaster, in 1819, visited Washington and was 
accorded the privilege of the Speaker's chair while Congress 
was in session. This privilege was extended on motion of 
Representative Burwell Bassett of Virginia. 15 Bassett and 
Lancaster exchanged letters, and in the fall of that year the 
great educator visited the principal Virginia cities. The Vir- 
ginia Herald, for October 30, 1819, states that Joseph Lancaster 
had that week " favored" Fredericksburg with two lectures 
on Lancasterianism and that the city was " warmed with the 
subject and convinced of the soundness of his principles." 
With the item is a reprint of "An Ode to Lancaster," published 
ten years before in a London paper. On November 21, 1819, 
the secretary of the local charity school society called a special 
meeting to discuss certain changes in the administration of 
the school. These changes, it may be inferred, were suggested 
by Lancaster himself. Mr. Lancaster lectured in Richmond 
on November 2 and 5, 1819, before the most distinguished 
people of the city; the governor, the Episcopal bishop, and 
many members of the legislature were present. 

Petersburg reports to the Second Auditor in 1822 that its 
quota of the Literary Fund is being expended to educate 
one hundred and thirty poor children at a monitorial school 
founded by a bequest of David Anderson and known as the 
''Anderson Seminary." 16 Richmond and Norfolk also gave 

15 Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 3 and March 4, 1819. The following comment in 
verse on this visit was made by the Baltimore Federal Gazette, reprinted by the Vir- 
ginia Herald, April 21, 18 19: 

Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Speaker Clay 

When slim Speaker Clay, looking up at his chair 

Saw that very fat man Joseph Lancaster there, 

He said, while with pleasure the pun through him thrilled, 

"Sir, I never before saw that chair so well filled!" 

The Teacher, well pleased, to reply was not slow; 
For witty, though serious, was dignified Jo. 
He mildly remarked in the same punning way, 
"He who fills the chair is no better than Clay." 

16 House Journal, 1823, Second Auditor's Report, 1882. David Anderson, 
by his will of June 18. 1812, left approximately $20,000 for a free school in Peters- 
burg. The fund became available in 1820, the income being united with the town's 
Literary Fund quota. 



30 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

their quota to the Lancasterian societies of their communities. 
When arguing for the Act of 1829, Mr. Fitzhugh of Fairfax 
is recorded as saying: "The expenses of education would 
spring up and the Lancasterian Plan, which multiplies the 
power of education at least tenfold, would be established to 
multiply the powers of the new system." 17 

It might be added, in this connection, that one other Euro- 
pean movement reached Virginia to stimulate primary edu- 
cation in the Literary Fund schools. This was the so-called 
English Infant School of Wilderspin. 18 The Infant School, 
modeled largely upon the Lancasterian monitorial system, 
was meant for children of kindergarten age — from two to 
five years — whose parents labored during the day. It, 
of course, had no historical or philosophical relation to Froe- 
bel's idea of freedom. It was, in fact, a scheme for drill of 
large numbers of very young children in subject-matter and 
moral habits, a system of training rather than an education 
in the sense of our modern theory. Such a school had been 
established in New York City in 1825, to supplement the 
enthusiastically supported higher Lancasterian schools in 
that city. Boston, it may be interpolated, set its stamp of 
disapproval on the Infant School in the fall of 1830. 19 In 
1827 the Petersburg school commissioners reported to Mr. 
Brown, "We have reason to believe an Infant School will 
shortly be set on foot in this town . . . from which we antici- 
pate great advantages to all, but especially to the poorer classes 
of society." Their next report gives the establishment of 
a local Infant School Society and states that the school is 
working well. 20 

The Secular Sunday School 

Virginia responded also to the national interest in the Raikes 
Sunday school. 21 In fact, the state was a pioneer in the move- 

17 House Journal, 1829. 

18 Cf. work of Robert Owen, New Lanark, Scotland, 1799, James Buchannan 
and Samuel Wilderspin, London, etc. 

19 Boston Annals of Primary Schools, 124. April and Sept., 1830. 

20 House. Journal, 1827-28, Second Auditor's Report, Petersburg. 

21 The name of Robert Raikes is usually associated with the first " secular " 
Sunday school in Gloucester, England, 1780, although it may be said that he simply 
drew attention to its importance in meeting the demands of the factory towns. 
Vide First Annual Report of the Managers' American Sunday School Union, 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read" 31 

ment. There is record of a Sunday school in the home of 
Thomas Crenshaw, a Methodist, in Hanover County, as early 
as 1786. As a movement the Sunday school may be said 
to have begun in the state as early as 181 2. By 1818 it 
was enthusiastically proclaimed a possible substitute for the 
common schools which the Act of 18 18 had effectually 
defeated. One school day in a week assuredly could not have 
taken the place of a five-day school, but enthusiasts in many 
places claimed that Sunday school pupils made more prog- 
ress than did the children in the private English schools. 
So the school commissioners of Richmond reported in 1827. 

As an evangelist to the common free school, the innovation, 
in fact, did have decided merits. The landlord was stirred 
benevolently by the " state of knowledge" among his neigh- 
bors; just as the gentlemen of the towns had been early moved 
to establish the various "charity societies for the care and 
education of the poor children." The Sunday school, it may 
be said, was an extension of the common practice on planta- 
tions for the master to gather his family, his white dependents, 
and servants for simple instruction "just before evening 
prayer." 22 The new movement indirectly promoted the 
political ideal of common schools by bringing the children 
of all classes together in the name of religion on terms of per- 
fect equality. Certainly it involved no political theory nor 
suggested change in government. It is not curious then 
that the Sunday school was a prime factor in drawing the 
attention of the rich to the actual educational needs of the 
poor with an impressiveness that political theory could never 
have for the conservative. At the same time it accustomed 
a neighborhood to schools. It was particularly effective in 



Philadelphia, May 24, 1825, reprinted in the Evangelical and Literary Magazine, 
vol. 8, p. 396; vol. 9, p. 332. This society is accredited with 321 auxiliary local 
unions, 1150 Sunday schools, 11,295 teachers, and 82,697 pupils. Forty-five 
thousand children attend schools not affiliated with the union, making a total of 
127,000. Indirectly it is estimated that these schools reached more than 1,000,000 
children in the United States. Pittsburg, 1809; New York, 1816; Boston, 1816; 
Philadelphia, 181 7, organized schools on this plan. Local records confirm the 
evidence of this sketch that Virginia was interested in this type of elementary 
education as early as 181 2. In 1833 there were 14,000 children enrolled in 203 
Sunday schools in the state. It was the Rev. Mr. Plumer of Petersburg and the 
Rev. Mr. Talmage of Georgia who proposed the Southern Sunday School Enter- 
prise in the American Union convention of 1833. 

22 Calhoun, Arthur W., Social History of the American Family, 231. 



32 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

the country districts, where it must have done much toward 
suggesting the practicability of a system of country schools. 
The Sunday school came in answer to a genuine desire on 
the part of many people to improve the wretched condition 
of those poor whites who, after the Revolution, isolated them- 
selves in what the newspapers called "The New Settlements." 
The negro in contemporary history has isolated himself in 
much the same way, in such settlements, from the con- 
tact of his substantial white neighbors and their educative 
and civilizing agencies. The depth of the moral depravity 
and ignorance of these people, no longer under the care of 
the Church, is the subject of countless letters and editorials 
in magazines and newspapers. The religious motive is re- 
sponsible for more than one ingenious plan for the neglected 
and illiterate. The religious tract was one means used to 
reach them. A notice in a Fredericksburg paper in 1812 
says: 

"Should any gentlemen wish to look at a Charitable Plan which has met 
the approbation of many of the respectable of all denominations, they are 
solicited to call at Mr. Gray's Book Store where a proposal may be seen 
for printing small tracts to be distributed among the people of the New 
Settlements. The honorable and liberal patronage which has been accorded 
the tract business within a few years, both in England and America, it is 
hoped will secure every promoter of it from contempt and censure." 23 

Within this same week, another "Friendly Address on the 
Highly Important Subject of Education," by T. Osgood, 
appeared : 

"The subject of education claims the attention of gentlemen of the first 
talents. And one great object which the writer has in view is to induce them 
to engage in it. . . . He entreats all of you who are parents not to neglect 
the education of your offspring, nor those of the poor among you ... he 
has made great sacrifices of property and ease toward assisting you in this 
important duty ... he has expended to a considerable amount in printing 
small books and useful pieces for the poor in the New Settlements. In 
the course of four years past he has procured to be printed more than two- 
hundred reams of paper into small books and religious tracts for the dis- 
tribution among the people of the New Settlements. All are invited to 
take these useful pieces for children, etc., and forward them to the families 
of the destitute. . . . These may be procured at Messrs. Conrad and 
Bonsel, Norfolk; Mr. Campbells in Petersburg; Mr. Jones in Richmond, 
and Mr. Gray's in Fredericksburg. 

"The subscriber is now procuring to be made many hundred of little 
boxes of two sizes; the smaller of which to contain the alphabet, the larger 

23 Fredericksburg, Virginia Herald, May 23, 18 12. 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 33 

the decalogue, and a great variety of moral and useful instruction. If the 
child is so situated that he is denied the privilege of going to school, these 
boxes have such directions upon them that the child can learn to read 
without ever seeing a school, provided there is any person in the family who 
can assist him in pronouncing the letters. It is thought that this plan of 
instruction, viz., to furnish the children with the letters and set them to 
composing for themselves, might be introduced to great advantage into 
the schools of little children. 

"As this plan here hinted at contains nothing peculiar to any mode of 
civil government or any particular sect of religion, it is hoped that all may 
feel disposed to give it a candid examination; and if it be found useful to 
lend it their patronage and support." 24 

In an appeal to destroy pauperism a correspondent of the 
Virginia Herald quotes at length a speech of Governor Clinton 
of New York on public education: 

"Those who have so fully lavished their wealth for the relief of indigence 
know full well the effect produced. No comment can be necessary. Half 
the amount which passes from the hand of benevolence through the idle 
pauper to augment the funds of tippling houses, would if employed in the 
support of Sunday schools, free, and charity schools, ... in a short time 
banish pauperism from our vicinity." 25 

The tract plan failed for the obvious reason that the poor 
could not read and interpret the tracts. Well-meaning de- 
vices to teach them to read failed also because they lacked the 
motive to learn. The secular Sunday schools, in the absence 
of other " charities" in the country districts, supplied both the 
motive and the means. James Mercer Garnett, 26 brother- 
in-law of Charles Fenton Mercer, and himself a warm friend 
of popular education, was a pioneer in this movement. As 
early as 181 2, according to his grandson, Professor James 
Mercer Garnett, 27 he built a log house on his estate, Elmwood, 
in upper Essex County, and with the help of the members of 
his family taught a Sunday school. Later those educated 

24 Ibid., May 26, 1812. 

25 Ibid., Feb. 23, 1818. 

26 James Mercer Garnett, 1770-1843, Member of legislature, 1824-5, U.S. Con- 
gress 1805-09, Constitutional Convention, 1829-30. A notable champion of the 
education of women. Author of Female Education, and many educational 
addresses, the last of which, Popular Education, was delivered before the Educa- 
tional Convention, Richmond, 1841. In addition to his Sunday school venture, 
Mrs. Garnett and her daughters conducted a private select school for girls at 
Elmwood, his estate, 1822-30. In 1830 Mr. Garnett himself opened a boys' select 
school. 

27 Address, "James Mercer Garnett, 1 770-1843," delivered at Tappahannock, 
Essex County, Va., 1898, by J. M. Garnett, president, St. John's College, 
Annapolis, Maryland. 



34 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

in the school and neighbors assisted as teachers. The house 
was twice enlarged and the number of scholars reached two 
hundred, some of whom "came from a distance of fifteen 
to twenty miles and not a few owed their entire education to 
this school." Investigation must reveal a number of such 
private Sunday school ventures. 

The Episcopal 28 and Presbyterian churches of Fredericks- 
burg, in 1816, "hearing of the Sunday schools of Europe and 
America," 29 divided their catechetical schools into two de- 
partments; one devoted to teaching the three r's, particularly 
reading and spelling, the other to learning portions of the 
scripture, the psalms, and hymns. The Presbyterian Sunday 
school report notes: 

"The rich and intelligent are made acquainted with the character and 
wants of the poor and a concern for their welfare exists which was never 
felt before. 30 It has given rise to Dorcas societies and situations are se- 
cured by teachers for our pupils. ... It has changed the appearance 
of our streets on Sunday. . . . Strangers visit us. A young lady 100 miles 
west from here after seeing our school has opened a Sunday school in her 
village. A few young gentlemen have opened an Evening Sunday school 
in a very destitute place adjacent to this town. . . . One Baptist brother 
has opened a Sunday school to a very destitute but numerous and impor- 
tant portion of society. . . . Sectarian bigotry and prejudice are yielding 
to the Christian influence of benevolence." 31 

In June, 1818, "a large number of children were collected 
and a house erected at Mount Zion on the land of Lawrence 
Battaile, and set apart for purposes of the institution." Only 
three out of sixty children knew their letters, but in several 

28 The first annual report of the Fredericksburg Episcopal Sunday school society 
says: "This society was the first of the kind established in Fredericksburg or this 
section of the state (Mar. 31, 1816).," but this refers to church schools. See Virginia 
Herald, Fredericksburg, April 25, 18 18. 

29 As an evidence of the enthusiasm in England, Rev. Thomas Charles, an 
Anglican clergyman, speaking of the attempts to reach the English adult poor 
through the Sunday school, says, "The report of the success of these schools soon 
spread . . . the illiterate adults began to call for instruction. In one count}-, 
after a public address on the subject, the adult poor, even the aged, flocked to the 
Sunday schools in crowds; and the shopkeeper could not immediately supply them 
with an adequate number of spectacles. Our schools, in general, are kept in the 
chapels; in some districts farmers, in summer time, lend their barns." Thomas 
Pole, History of Adult School, Bristol, 1816. 

30 In Fredericksburg the Sunday schools were not limited to children "destitute 
of weekly instruction, but include the children of the Male and Female Charity 
schools attached to the church" — First Episcopal Sunday School Report, Fred- 
ericksburg, Virginia Herald, April 25, 1818. 

31 Annual Report of Presbyterian Sunday School, Dec. 15, i8i7,in the Virginia 
Herald, Jan. 7, 1818. 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 35 

months "two thirds of the scholars are classed with the readers 
and read in the New Testament with facility." 32 In 18 19 
a school was established in Westmoreland that bid fair "to 
confer most substantial benefits on a destitute neighborhood 
. . . How solid a foundation of future good may be laid by 
these blessed associations." In a letter from the superin- 
tendent of a country Sunday school near Fredericksburg, 
we find: 

"The progress of the children is inconceivable. On last Sabbath 59 
children attended school and 70 are engaged who have voluntarily come 
forward to receive instruction. ... As an evidence of the great interest 
excited among the children, I will mention that they unanimously requested 
me to teach on Easter Monday and the last Sabbath they begged I would 
teach on Whitsun Monday. Some children showing such interest and 
anxiety in this opportunity that they walk six or seven miles to school." 33 

A writer from Upper Essex County 34 who had opened a 
Sunday school says: 

"Many neighbors had scarcely heard of a Sunday school before. . . • 
The spectacle displayed by the Sunday school could not be viewed without 
emotion by any but those who had neither human sympathy nor benevo- 
lence. The idea of so many helpless children being placed in a situation 
to be taught various duties in life . . . made the school not less beneficial 
to the teachers themselves and the visitors. 

" The number of scholars increased until the astonishing number of 156 
was enrolled. After a prosperous summer the neighbors were so gratified 
with the experiment that they voluntarily built a house for . . . the fall 
and winter. ... A considerable number of persons worked with such zeal 
as none of the ordinary motives of labor inspire, and in a short time they 
erected a comfortable house of logs and clap-boards sufficiently convenient to 
hold 200 persons." 35 

This report tells us further that the school was opened and 
continued throughout the winter with no days lost, increasing 
attendance, and no cases of "disorderly conduct." At first 
no grown person entered, but at length a few having had 
"boldness enough to conquer that false shame . . . the num- 
ber was increased to thirty. . . . Almost all — children 
and adults — who began with the alphabet have now learned 

32 Second Annual Report, Episcopal Sunday School Society, Fredericksburg, 
Virginia Herald, May 8, 1819. 

33 Fredericksburg, Virginia Herald, April 25, 1818. 

34 Article unsigned, but author is perhaps James Mercer Garnett, of Elmwood, 
Essex County, referred to in footnote, p. 33. 

35 Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, III 238, reprinted in Virginia 
Herald, Sept. 9, 1820. 



36 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

to read which many did in eight or ten Sundays." The author 
of the report continued to elaborate on the improvement in 
discipline in his new school: 

" Effort has been made to dispense with two things usually considered 
indispensable to success in schools (1) the principle of emulation among 
scholars; (2) the fear of instructors. The first does more harm than good 
in exciting the worst passions. Emulation with us is of a kind which in- 
stead of having for its object the putting to shame of a fellow, has a reward 
attainable by all because it is bestowed upon diligence and good conduct 
alone. [The system suggested is] the award of tickets for attendance 
and good behavior which are redeemed at the end of the year for a Bible 
or some other good book without regard to distinction or superior capacity 
which Deity alone can confer. . . . Desire to excell in intellect is a power- 
ful principle . . . but in a majority of instances it improves the intellect 
at the expense of the heart." 

No punishments, it might be added, were administered 
except the withholding of tickets and private admonition 
by one of the superintendents. The school was divided 
into two parts, with separate teachers and a superintendent 
for each division: (1) Children and adults learning to read 
and spell; (2) those reading in the New Testament, learning 
portions of psalms, etc. These classes recited from three to 
five lessons each Sunday, but there was no " cutting down." 
The session lasted four hours. Emphasis was placed upon 
reading. This report gives the texts in use as follows: 
New Testament; Episcopal and Watts' Catechism; Watts' 
Divine Songs; Watts' Hymns for Infant Minds; New York 
Series: Alphabet, The Primer, The Expositor, The Speller, 
Readers I and II. These books were taken home by the 
scholars that they " might be learning something at every 
leisure time during the week." Church dogma found small 
place in these Virginia schools. No preference, in fact, was 
given to any particular sect, but " parents of children chose for 
them" the catechism they should use. The writer continues: 

"The school was opened by one of the Superintendents reading a chapter 
and short prayer, then followed the lessons for the day, during which the 
Superintendent examined the copies written at home. One of the Super- 
intendents concluded the day by reading to the whole school some manual 
or entertaining tract, story or essay of which the works of Miss Hannah 
More, who has written things especially for Sunday schools, furnish the 
best that can be procured. The writer believes that every man, woman 
and child capable of receiving instruction might be taught to read and write 
in two years." 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 37 

In 1818 the Rev. Joseph Thomas published at Winchester, 
in the Valley, "A Discourse dedicated to the World and a 
Sunday School Song of Kernstown to be sold for the purpose 
of erecting a building for worship free for all denominations." 
In his plea for contributions to this school he said: 

"The institution which you are now called upon to aid is fixed upon the 
following plan: It embraces children and people of all descriptions, ages and 
sex, where they are taught the letters, spelling and reading and the sacred 
scriptures. There are now about 75 scholars and 8 teachers. Four males 
who look over and instruct the male children and four females who instruct 
the female children. These teachers are bound by the constitution of the 
school to bestow their labor without any pecuniary reward. . . . There 
is to be a public interview with the scholars every three months. . . . There 
are also some books necessary . . . articles of diet and comfortable cloth- 
ing. ... It could not be presumed that the founder and teachers who 
voluntarily and without compensation . . . give their time and labor, 
should in addition defray the expenses necessary to the support of the 
nstitution." 36 

The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine gives special 
notice to the organization of Sunday School Unions and the 
spread of schools. 37 On August 7, 1819, it prints a report of 
the Hungry Sabbath School Society which was instrumental 
in establishing schools at four points in Hanover and ad- 
joining counties, — Brook Tavern, Hungry Meeting House, 
Fork Church, and Merry Oaks. Eight such schools were 
established in Goochland, a county to the west of Richmond. 
On June 7, 1819, it reprints from the Lynchburg Press the 
proceedings of a society in Nelson County: 

"A few persons of both sexes associated themselves for the purpose 
of gratuitously instructing on the Sabbath any [[whites] who might be 
disposed to embrace the offer but particularly such as are debarred by the 
necessity of daily earning. It is due to our fair country women . . . that 
the idea of this institution originated." 

The Virginia Herald of June, 18 19, contains a lengthy 
report of the Second Anniversary of the Sabbath Schools of 
Fredericksburg and vicinity. This may be taken as typical 

36 Bound with other pamphlets — Sunday School Addresses, New York Public 
Library. 

37 The Rev. John H. Rice, a Presbyterian clergyman, editor of the Virginia 
Evangelical and Literary Magazine, published at Richmond, 1818-28, justly styles 
himself "an ardent friend of Sabbath Schools" and under "Review of Re- 
ligious Intelligence," in that publication throws much light on the spread of these 
schools. He also devotes much space to Sunday Schools in his Christian Monitor. 



38 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

of the aim and scope of the schools as they were known at 

that time. 

"Their present state is calculated to afford the highest gratification 
to every benevolent heart. . . . Convinced of the salutary influence of 
the Sabbath school on all classes of society we hail it as an auspicious 
event that these institutions are rapidly increasing. . . . We exhibit 
for the satisfaction of the public a view of all the Sunday schools we 
know in this section: Fredericksburg 3, Falmouth 1, Port Royal 1, 
Stafford County 1, Spottsylvania County 1, and 20 others instituted by 
Rev. William Chester, agent of the Fredericksburg Missionary Society, — 
34 in all. The schools have afforded instruction to about 2000 children 
and adults." 

In 1824 five hundred children of the Richmond city Sunday 
schools were received by General Lafayette while the latter 
was a guest of the city. In that year the Richmond school 
commissioners indicate that the idea has been long estab- 
lished there and comment as follows: 

"The Sunday School holds out flattering promises of future usefulness 
to the state for the diffusion of knowledge. ... It has been remarked that 
a pupil learns more on that day in the Sunday school than in the common 
school in a week." 38 

The same report shows 1165 children in attendance in this 
class of schools alone and that out of their Literary Fund 
quota the commissioners annually gave the Society thirty 
cents for each pupil enrolled. This amount was supplemented 
the following year from the same fund by ''$30 for books and 
supplies for the Sunday Schools of the City." 

In 1826 a Sunday school was formed in Scott County for 
the "promotion of Primary Education" In the Report of 
the Commissioners for 1827 there is mention of a Sunday 
School Society. The commissioners ask aid for it, as "it 
promises much in favor of learning and good morals among 
the youth of the country." 39 Petersburg, a town of only a 
few thousand, in 1830 contained twelve schools of all classes 
open to indigent children. 40 In 1826 there were four Sunday 
schools receiving state aid that were " skillfully taught by 88 
teachers and faithfully attended by more than 600 children." 
The fact that a local bookseller, in 1830, kept a large card 
in the local newspaper advertising himself as the sole agent 

38 Second Auditor, House Journal, 1826. 39 Ibid., 1827. 

40 Ibid., 1830. 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 39 

for the New York Sunday School Magazine is, at least, sugges- 
tive of a general interest in this type of education in this one 
locality. 

The commissioners of Northumberland County felt, in 
1832, that though they had no legal sanction for it they should 
furnish books to poor children in different Sunday schools of 
that county. Norfolk County, in 1835, states that large num- 
bers of indigent children of laborers in the Navy Yard are 
being educated in Portsmouth, "where instruction is rendered 
more beneficial by the Sunday schools." The Sunday schools 
of Portsmouth are mentioned in subsequent reports of the 
Second Auditor. 

In concluding this section it will suffice to summarize briefly 
the general significance of these charitable ventures in extend- 
ing the common, free school idea. The Sunday school move- 
ment, in particular, has been discussed here to show its 
widespread popularity in Virginia at the very time the theory 
of popular education was receiving most attention in the press 
and legislature of the state. Many Virginia people came 
to see in the Sunday school the realization of their dream of 
popular education. 41 Others disgusted with the deficiencies of 
the primary schools of 18 18, seriously suggest the substitution 
of the Sunday school as a state system. "Iota," writing in 
one of the church magazines of the period, draws the atten- 
tion of the president and directors of the Literary Fund to 
the fact that in Richmond and Manchester with "particular 
and constant care one thousand of the most undisciplined 
children of those cities have been taught to read and write 
at an expense of about thirty-four cents per annum." 42 
"And," says Iota, "the benefits of the Sunday schools are 
not confined to the towns," 

"Let that writer go to the counties of Charlotte, Prince Edward and 
Mathews and he will learn. I refer to these counties because there are no 
towns in them and because the experiment . . . has been tried there. . . . 
Every neighborhood in which the institution has been fairly tried is able 
to contribute a volume of facts in support of my remarks. I speak what 
I do know." 43 

This advocate proceeds to show that the state could, by an 
expenditure of $15,000, reach 30,000 poor children through 

41 "Iota," Evangelical and Literary Magazine, V, 95-7. 

42 Ibid., 94- 43 Ibid., VI, 427-8. 



40 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

the Sunday school, while the Literary Fund schools were 
expending $45,000 to reach, in 1823, fewer than 5000 children. 
Gratuitous teaching was presupposed. Moreover, these vol- 
unteer teachers, being imbued with their mission, would, 
as current experiments were amply proving, give that con- 
stant and intelligent supervision over the moral life and in- 
tellectual progress of the individual children of the lower 
classes "so wanting in the eight and ten dollar teachers" 
of the state primary school system. u Our legislators may rely 
upon it that no plan will be, or from the nature of things, can be 
efficient but that which brings individual zeal and charity to oper- 
ate with unwearied perseverance on individual cases " 44 Iota 
saw the crudeness of the New Settlements giving way to the 
"powerful and salutary influence of frequent, familiar, and 
affectionate intercourse with young gentlemen and ladies of 
generous disposition, polite manners, and cultivated minds." 
The Sunday schools would tend to equalize the difference be- 
tween the Rich and the Poor. 

A second fact of significance was the nonsectarian influence 
of the new movement, and, as was just implied, the intro- 
duction of improved methods of discipline by which flogging 
and fools caps and mechanical memory were replaced with 
higher appeals to children's interests. But, after all, the 
main influence of the Sunday school lay in the new relation 
"the reign of Love" made between the Rich and the Poor and 
the fact that it was the only common school in practice in 
which the sting of pauperism was not felt by the Poor. 45 There 
were no fees and efforts were always made to win the truant 
back to the school. Parents as wayward and undisciplined 
as their children were visited, conquered, and invited to come 
with their children. On Sundays, the spirit of Jeffersonianism 
was realized; all the children of all the classes met together on 
perfect equality. 

"At any rate, the only difference arises from punctuality, good behavior 
and attainment; and very often the child of the poor man ranks above 
his wealthy companion. . . . Too, the teacher uses all the winning 
methods of kindness to awaken the curiosity of his pupils and give a 
strong excitement to the mind. Hence it is that scholars, under the influ- 

44 " Iota," Evangelical and Literary Magazine, V, 94. 

45 "A Friend to Learning," Ibid., VIII, 546. 



" To Give the Poor the Power to Read " 41 

ence of this charity make a progress which seems to many unaccount- 
able. But it is not ordinarily so when a young pauper is sent to the ' Old 
Field school.'" 46 

Thus, though the Sunday school may not be said to have 
finally substituted for the common school, it can be justly 
claimed to have played a peculiarly significant part in the 
development of the free school idea as modern society has 
evolved it and as the Virginia people were beginning to 
accept it. 

46 Ibid, 546. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE CREATION OF THE VIRGINIA LITERARY FUND, l8lO-II. 
ATTEMPTS TO SECURE STATE LEGISLATION FOR EDUCATION. 
LOCAL VS. STATE CONTROL IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRA- 
TION AND SUPPORT 

In colonial Virginia the interests of the established society 
of the eastern counties and the welfare of the Established 
Church were one. The Church had been a powerful agency 
in training the English for leadership, in maintaining the policy 
of the Crown, and in conserving the social order. The Bap- 
tist and other dissenting religious sects, representing both a 
political and an ecclesiastical movement for democracy, were 
summarily dealt with in the colony even on the eve of the 
Revolution. Among the earliest efforts of Thomas Jefferson, 
in his attempts to eradicate "every fibre of antient and future 
aristocracy/' was that to break the political power and pres- 
tige of the Episcopal Church in particular and of ecclesiasticism 
in general. The advantage of the Church ended, however, 
with the passing of English control and the desertion of more 
than two-thirds of the parish priests. Although the General 
Assembly, by Act of December 9, 1776, guaranteed to the 
Church its integrity and holdings, in 1802 the Separation 
Acts reversed this action and forever separated the Church 
from any direct or indirect part in the state and from any 
advantage over the other sects. 1 

In colonial times each parish church and minister were 
partially supported by a glebe, or parish lands, set aside by 
the Crown and reaffirmed by the House of Burgesses as late 
as 1748. According to Hugh Jones, " In every Parish there is 
allotted for the Minister a convenient Dwelling House and a 

1 The Episcopal Church of Manchester attempted, in 1804, to break the con- 
stitutionality of the Act of 1802, which transferred proceeds from the sale of vacant 
glebe lands to the Poor Fund. Case of Turpin vs. Lockett, VI Call 113. Edmund 
Pendleton supported the Church's plea, while Judges. Tucker and Spencer Roane 
established its legality. In 1840, in the case of Selden vs. The Overseers of the 
Poor, its constitutionality was finally declared. XI Leigh 132. Vide J. P. Branch 
Historical Papers, II, 14-15. 

42 



The Literary Fund, 1810 43 

Glebe of about two hundred and fifty Acres of Land with a 
small Stock of Cattle, ready in some Places as in James 
Town." With the Separation Acts these lands were taken 
over by the commonwealth and sold for the benefit of the 
poor. Only the church buildings remained. Many of these 
were wantonly destroyed by over enthusiastic democrats or 
by those who had suffered persecution through the Church. 2 
Whole parishes ceased to exist or were taken over by dissent- 
ing congregations. As the Church had controlled education 
in the colony, its property went, quite naturally, to educa- 
tion under the new regime. Quite naturally too, as public 
education in the colony had meant education of the orphan 
and the poor, we find that the county overseers of the poor 
were made trustees of the funds drawn in large part from 
the sale of these confiscated Church lands and instructed to 
care for the poor as the county court and vestry had been 
required to do under the older statutes. The words "glebe" 
and "public education" became intimately connected. While 
the more radical provisions of Jefferson's aldermanic plan of 
1796 were ineffectual, still Virginia really laid the foundations 
of a state school system in assuming from the first that this 
confiscated Church and other property once held by the Crown 
should go to the purpose of public education — that is, by 
social precedent, to the education of the poor, the only form of 
public education that demanded state control and support. 

As early as 1780 "certain escheated lands" in Kentucky 
County were vested in trustees as a "free donation from the 
commonwealth for public schools in the said county." 3 In 
1802 the state provided that such glebe lands, the plate of 
deserted churches, forfeited, unclaimed, and deserted lands, 
etc., could be sold by the counties on petition and the funds 
applied to "free" school purposes. 4 An example of such use 
of glebe lands for public school purposes — was the provision, 
in 1808, for Hanover Parish, King George County. "The 
freeholders and housekeepers of the county are authorized 

2 Vawter's Episcopal Church of Upper Essex County, according to local tradi- 
tion, was saved by Mrs. James Mercer Garnett through her claim that the building 
stood upon the land of the Garnett estate, Elmwood, and was, therefore, in her 
care. . 3 Hening, X, 288. 

4 Senate Journal, 1802. An Act Concerning the Glebe Lands and Churches 
within the Commonwealth, passed Jan. 12, 1802. Vide Revised Code, 1803-08, 
Vol. I. 



44 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

to elect seven fit and discreet men of the parish, who 
shall dispense the glebe funds in maintaining a free school 
and teachers." 5 In 1807 such a school was in operation in 
Nottoway County. 6 The sale of the glebe lands in York 
County in the same year enabled the academy at Yorktown 
to reorganize. The trustees of Yorktown asked for "sale of 
glebe" of that parish to be applied to schools, 1807. 7 The 
trustees of the New Kent Charity School, incorporated Febru- 
ary 4, 1808, were authorized to use the funds from the sale of 
"the glebes of the parishes of St. Peter and of Blisland . . . 
for a poor-house, work-house, and a school-house, or houses 
where poor children may be educated." 8 In 18 13 Bruton 
Parish, York County, sold its glebe and what remained of 
the Mathew Whaley Free School lands. 9 Prince William, in 
181 1, created a free school fund by combining a small bequest 
with the proceeds from the sale of its glebe. "An Act con- 
cerning Yeates' 10 Free School," in Nansemond County, 1810, 
authorizes the sale of timber from its glebe for the "establish- 
ment of two or three free schools" in that county. The 
General Assembly, December, 1809, permits the sale of land 
for "a free school" in Middlesex County; 11 in 181 1, such a 
sale is allowed for the establishment of "public schools in 
said county of Albemarle;" 12 four similar sales in the same 
year were made in James City County. 13 In 181 7 James 
City established a "poor-house and school" 14 from such a 
sale. 

The term "glebe school" is common in many localities 
to-day and the fund is still intact in some counties. In West- 
moreland County a school revenue is still derived from several 
'"glebe farms." This fund was originally disbursed by a Poor 
School society incorporated in 1813. The establishment of 
the practice of the sale of glebe lands for the education of the 

5 House Journal, 1808, Jan. 1, 51, Acts of Ass. 1811, 101. 

6 House Journal, 1807, 20. 

7 Ibid., 20. Should also be in County Deed Book, 1807. 

8 Hening, III, 428, New Series. This statute further states that if the income 
from such fund proved insufficient for these purposes the necessary balance should 
be raised by levy on property and collected by the sheriff. This is a splendid ex- 
ample of the English method of administering its poor funds and the traditional 
method of raising such funds. 

9 Acts of Assembly, 1813, 116. 12 Acts of Assembly, 1811, 29, 30. 

10 Senate Journal, 1810, 34. 13 Ibid., 1811. 

11 House Journal, 1809, 25. 14 Ibid., 1816-17, 163. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 45 

poor led Virginia eventually to make these confiscations the 
basis for the first permanent state fund for the support of free 
schools. 

Another example of "free" school support was the private 
endowment. After the Revolution several colonial legacies 
for free school purposes were reincorporated. On January 12, 
1805, the Syms-Eaton Free School Foundation, dating back 
to the death, in 1634, of Benjamin Syms, was placed in the 
hands of a corporate board, "the Trustees of the Syms-Eaton 
Free School, who must be elected by the freeholders of the 
county." It was the duty of this board to provide for all 
children of the county, not able to pay, instruction in the 
elementary branches "without fee or reward." 15 In 1803 the 
bequest of John Yeates, 1731, of Nansemond County, was 
reincorporated by the legislature. From the hire of slaves 
belonging to the estate, £49 was available that year for free 
school purposes. 16 The William Monroe bequest, 1767, was 
with the proceeds from the sale of glebes in Orange County, 
incorporated into The Orange Humane Society in 181 1. 17 
Examples of post-Revolutionary bequests for free elementary 
or primary school purposes are those of David Anderson, 181 2, 
Petersburg; Edward Goode, 181 7, Margaret Faulkner, 181 7, 
both of Chesterfield County; 1S Charles Piper, 1820, Accomac; 
Martin Dawson, 1835, of Nelson County, leaving $39,500; 19 
Colonel Robert Blakey, 1828, of Middlesex County; 20 Aaron 
Hall, 1845, Hanover County; and Samuel Miller, 1869, of 
Albermarle County, establishing The Miller Manual Labor 
School in 1874. 21 

Glebe funds, forfeitures, and legacies were not the only 
sources of revenue for schools. 22 An easy way out of taxation 

15 House Journal, Jan. 12, 1805, and Jan. 22, 1806. 

16 Virginia School Report, 1885, 49, part third. 

17 Acts of Assembly, 181 1, 83. 

18 House Journal, Dec. 20, 1818, 58, "two tracts of land and personal property 
. . . for the establishment of a Free School." 

19 Ibid., Dec. 20, 1818, 58, and Mar. 20, 1841, etc. 

20 Acts of Assembly, March 30, 1838. Giving Middlesex County Commis- 
sioners $1000 from the estate of Col. Robert Blakey to assist in the establishment 
of the District System of Common Schools. 

21 This school was similar in character to the Norfolk Manual Labor School for 
indigent boys, 1853, "which employed boys on farms and in useful occupations 
until they were twenty-one," Acts of Assembly, February 7, 1853. 

22 When, in 181 1, the Literary Fund was found insufficient, the board was em- 
powered to raise $39,000 annually by lottery. In 181 2 Gen. Barbour suggests a 



46 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

was the lottery, common to many of the states. In Virginia 
it was one of the chief methods of providing public funds for 
all manner of purposes. 23 Roads, bridges, public, Masonic 
and society halls, many churches, and even the geographical 
researches of one gentleman, were financed by the lottery. 
In fact, where public tax was impossible and subscriptions 
failed, the lottery succeeded. In a sense, it may be regarded 
as an early form, a forerunner in aim of our modern bond issue 
for school purposes. The charity school at Fredericksburg 
Academy, 1789; Transylvania Seminary (later Transylvania 
University), 1790, are a few of a number of schools built, or 
partially built, by money from this game of chance which 
Virginia sooner or later questioned, but only gradually gave up. 

A direct tax on property in support of schools is exceptional, 
though it does appear in the early statutes. By Act of 1806 
the town of Charlottesville was authorized to elect trustees 
who should have the authority to lay a levy on property, per- 
sonal and real, to the extent of $200 for the purpose of estab- 
lishing a "public school or seminary." 24 

"Public schools," "free schools," " education," are common 
terms in the proceedings of the General Assembly in the first 
decade of the nineteenth century; but no bills for the es- 
tablishment of public schools are mentioned, except those 
petitions for glebe schools that, at best, really represent a 
readjustment of the colonial poor law to the needs of the 
commonwealth. Quite naturally, the demand for state aid 
centered on higher education and arose among the well-to-do 
and liberally educated. In 1806 Mr. Semple presented a bill 
for the "establishment of the University of Virginia and to 



state lottery for the benefit of schools {vide H. J. 181 1, 181 2). It is interesting to 
note that the General Assembly of Virginia granted a lottery in 1826, to relieve 
Mr. Jefferson's financial difficulties, who was about to be, as Mr. Cabell says, 
"deprived of his estate or abridged in his comforts." Senate Journal, April 20, 
1826. Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 14, 1826. 

23 Private lotteries were prohibited in Virginia in 1779; but from 1785 to 1805 
there were more than fifty lotteries permitted by statute — see index, Hening's 
Supplement, 1785 to 1806. An omnibus Lottery Act, Dec. 20, 1790, provided for: 
Transylvania (Ky.) Seminary; church buildings in Warminster, Petersburg, 
Alexandria, Shepards Town, etc.; academies, at Southampton and Rodfish Gaps; 
a paper mill near Staunton; streets in Alexandria; a bridge in Portsmouth; the 
Amicable Society of Richmond; and for the benefit of Nathaniel Twing's geo- 
graphical researches. Hening's Supplement, Dec. 20, 1790. 

24 Hening, New Series, III, 255. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 47 

open a subscription for that purpose." 25 Governor George 
Cabell, brother of Joseph C. Cabell, had spoken strongly on 
the "need of literary institutions" that year, as Governor 
James Monroe had done before him, 1801-02. 26 Governor 
John Tyler, in his message to the^legislature in 1809, strikes 
out boldly and vigorously for state appropriation for education, 
particularly higher education. He assails the legislature for 
"its failure, by reason of a fatal apathy and a parsimonious 
policy, to provide state schools." He may have been carried 
away in his effort to force the legislature into action, but his 
statements must be essentially correct, so far as state action 
was concerned, when he says: " Thirty- three years have passed 
. . . and not one single, complete seminary of learning has 
been established (civil or military) in this great and wealthy 
state in addition to those which existed under auspices much 
less favorable than the increased population and resources of 
our country afford; except what has been effected by lotteries 
and some small, additional aids not arising immediately from 
the state. It is true [referring to the provision of 1796] that 
a faint effort was made some years past to establish schools; 
. . . but in that solitary instance the courts had discretionary 
powers and did nothing, ... to the disgrace of our county 
courts and the great disadvantage of the people." 
He continues: 

"He must be a wealthy citizen, indeed, who can educate one son. 
There cannot be a subject of more importance to a free government. . . . 
A stranger might think we had declared war against the Arts and Sciences. 
... A proper diffusion of knowledge is the only certain means of accom- 
plishing so glorious a work [that of upbuilding the state], . . . and not 
letting the genius of Virginia languish into apathy and cold neglect." 27 

The existence of many local charity funds indifferently 
administered, the recognized looseness with which the local 
appropriations for the poor were audited, the agitation for a 

25 House Journal, Jan. 18, 1806, 81. 

26 See Governors' Messages in House Journal, Monroe, 1801-02; Cabell, 
1806-08; Tyler, 1809, etc. It is uncommon from this period on for a governor 
to omit a paragraph on the need of education, literary institutions, etc., from his 
annual message. 

27 House Journal, 1809-, Tyler's message to the legislature. It is very obvious 
that Jefferson was identified with this movement, having just returned to Virginia 
after his service as president of the United States. Vide letter from Jefferson to 
John Tyler in 1810, Ford, IX, 275. 



48 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

state university, etc., raised the question of the efficient dis- 
position of these sources of income. In the fall of 1809 a 
special committee in the House of Delegates offered a bill 
"to appropriate certain escheats, confiscatures, and forfeitures 
to the encouragement of learning." This bill passed the 
House January 29, 1810, and was signed with the concurrence 
of the Senate, February 8, 1810. 28 The authorship of this 
bill, curiously enough, is claimed for both Governor James M. 
Barbour, a friend of common schools, and a leader in many 
progressive movements, and for Charles Fenton Mercer, also 
an ardent champion of popular education and a staunch 
Federalist. 29 The fund established under the bill was to be 
known thereafter as "The Literary Fund of Virginia." It 
became the foundation of all future state school legislation 
and an instrument, when wisely administered, of direct state 
control in the spread of educational opportunity. 30 

The Second Auditor of the State Treasury, James Brown, Jr., 
of Mecklinburg, was under the Act instructed to open an ac- 
count with the treasurer to be known as the Literary Fund. 
The Act states: "The Fund will be divided and appropriated 
as the next legislature sees best adapted to the promotion 
of literature, provided always that . . . the fund be appro- 
priated for the sole benefit of a school or schools in each county 

28 House Journal, Feb. 8, 1810; Acts of Assembly, 1810. 

29 The counter claims of Barbour and Mercer may be found in the Virginia 
Farmer's Register, 1836, 685, and in Popular Education, C. F. Mercer, 1826, ap- 
pendix, p. xcii, respectively. Barbour was, indeed, speaker of the House of Dele- 
gates in 1809, and, no doubt, appointed the committee that brought in the bill 
that created the fund. In 181 2 he became governor and president of the Literary 
Fund. Mercer was a member of the General Assembly, but was not a member of 
the committee just referred to. In an address, printed in the Farmers Register, 
Mr. Barbour warmly states that he is the originator of the Literary Fund and that 
only a few years before he had produced the original bill and proved before wit- 
nesses that it was in his handwriting! In his Discourse on Popular Education, 
Mercer simply says in the appendix: "The bill of 1810, the report of the committee 
of finance, and the resolution which followed it were given by the same member of 
the House of Delegates." The resolution and report were by Mr. Mercer, House 
Journal, 1816, 177, 199. Mr. Randolph, in his Early History of the University 
of Virginia, xxxiii, draws attention to the fact that J. C. Cabell was one of the com- 
mittee. "Further," he says, "it now appears that it was drawn by James M. 
Barbour." 

30 The Virginia Literary Fund in 1916 amounts to $3,115,894.62; its income 
with the annual state tax for school purposes, amounts to $2,751,821.67. Through 
it the state is able to control educational development by supplementing local funds 
and by paying a large part of superintendents' salaries, thus making them state 
officers controlled by the Board of Public Instruction. Vide Constitution of 
Virginia, 1902. For financial statement of the fund, see the Annual Report of 
R. C. Stearnes, State Superintendent, 1915-16. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 49 

. . . subject to such orders as the General Assembly shall 
hereafter direct." 31 

This "direction" is cast into the "Act to Provide for the 
Education of the Poor," 32 February 12, 181 1, in which is made 
a "solemn protest" against any future legislature's misap- 
plying the Literary Fund to any other purpose than that of 
the " Education of the Poor ... an object equally humane, 
just, necessary; involving alike the interests of humanity and 
the preservation of the constitution, laws, and liberty, of the 
. . . commonwealth." The management of the fund was 
vested in a board of the president and directors of the Lit- 
erary Fund (comprised of the following state officers by virtue 
of their office: the governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, 
attorney general, and president of the Court of Appeals), 
"who shall, as soon as sufficient funds be provided, establish 
schools for the Education of the Poor in each and every county; 
and who shall, moreover, appoint an agent in each county to 
look after the returns to the Fund and to prevent misap- 
propriation." 33 

As the fund in December, 181 1, was only $12,904.60, yield- 
ing without increment an annual income of about $1000, the 
board was empowered to "raise by lottery annually for seven 
years a sum not over $30,000." The first Report of the 
Board, submitted to the legislature December 6, records: 

<l The best intelligence express their strong sense of the utility of the insti- 
tution [the Literary Fund]. There are many difficulties due to the infancy 
of such an establishment, . . . but we think the Literary Fund will reflect 
lustre on the commonwealth and will promote happiness; and by a dif- 
fusion of information so essential to liberty, will hand down our free and 
happy institutions, etc. ; . . . and that a general system of instruction will 
eventually be realized." 34 

The game of chance, however, proved a poor method of 
supplementing the fund. The report suggests that the As- 
sembly give the management of the lottery to others as they 
had "difficulty in disposing of tickets, and made little out of 

31 Supplement, Act of General Assembly, 1807-12, 48, 49. Ibid., 67, 68. 
Chapter LXII — note the change from the indefinite title of 1810: "To the en- 
couragement of learning." 

32 Acts of Assembly, 1811, 8. 

33 On June 15, the first Literary Fund Board was organized and it promptly 
appointed such agents in every county in the state. A quasi-system of state 
schools may be said to have been created with these appointments. 

34 House Journal, Dec. 6, 181 1. 



50 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

it." 35 The product of two years' growth added only $8,801.40. 
At best, the three or four thousand dollars a year income 
would go but a short way toward meeting the needs of the 
state. Subsequent reports 36 and acts of 18 12-15 deal with 
the manner of collecting fees and the methods of augmenting 
and investing the fund; for the War of 181 2 drained the re- 
sources of the state and diverted interest from the cause. 

Governor James Barbour, in his message to the Assembly, 
November 30, 181 2, speaks of the immediate propriety of 
establishing some " Literary Institutions. . . . No effort has 
been made to foster the means of Education. . . . The Re- 
publican legislature has never since the first moment of its 
existence contributed one cent to an establishment of this 
kind." The purport of his message is the need of an ample 
state appropriation to supplement the Literary Fund or the 
instituting of a great state lottery under the auspices of the 
Literary Fund and directed by the legislature itself. Gov- 
ernor Barbour continues: "If the state helps out, the pro- 
gressive augmentation of the Fund affords flattering prospect 
that the President and Directors may be enabled to establish 
a school, or schools, in each county sooner than they originally 
expected. ... Its vital importance recommends a further 
appropriation from the Legislature." 37 

The Second Annual Report of the Literary Fund placed 
the amount at $21,705.40. This time Governor Barbour 
recommends a "State Lottery Commission, — members of 
which shall be exempt from other public employment and to 
whom a small compensation might be given," — whose duty 
it should be to augment the fund. "This mode," he says, 
"has been adopted by sister states with great success. While 
it gives confidence to those who are opposed to adventure in 
lotteries, it renders their drawing certain, since the state can, 
without difficulty, retain for its own benefit all shares not 
disposed of. If a lottery is objected to as improper, though 
we have a law against it, it is notorious that large sums of 

35 Supplement to Acts of General Assembly, 1807-12, 127. See "Act to prevent 
unlawful gaining, etc.," Feb. 20, 1812, in which lotteries and raffles were prohibited 
under penalty of forfeiture of the whole sum to be raised — such sum to go to the 
Literary Fund. 

36 House Journals, Dec. 14, 1812; May 13, 1813; Dec. 27, 1813; Nov. 7, 1814; etc. 

37 Ibid., Nov. 30, 1812. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 51 

money are annually expended by our citizens in the promotion 
of lotteries in neighboring states leaving us their evils without 
their advantages. Let us establish a state lottery and inter- 
dict those of other states." 38 On motion of Charles Fenton 
Mercer, the appropriate House committee, of which he was 
chairman, took over the resolution for a Lottery Commission 
for consideration, but there is no record that anything came 
of it. 

It is interesting to recall at this point that Jefferson was 
President of the United States, 1801-09, and, therefore, some- 
what removed from state politics during the years just pre- 
ceding the creation of the Literary Fund. Although in 181 6 
he pronounced the fund a sound provision, the board was 
entirely representative of the East and its interests and smacked 
too much of "the powers of executives and councils" to ac- 
cord with his theory of government. In commenting on the 
trend of legislation he points out that "he had rather with- 
draw his support entirely than see an institution so necessary 
to the state managed for, rather than by, the people." . . . 
"Why not," he said, "commit to the Governor and council 
the management of all our farms, mills, and merchant stores?" 39 

Other critics of the Literary Fund soon arose. Constant 
accusations against the president and directors were early 
made and continued until the end of the ante-bellum period. 40 
The board was pressed to carry out the somewhat indefinite 

38 House Journal, Report signed by James M. Barbour, Dec. 14, 181 2. The 
present constitution of West Virginia provides, in addition to a State Board of 
Education, an ex-omcio "Board of the School Fund," comprised of the governor, 
superintendent, auditor, and treasurer, whose duty it is to invest and manage 
the permanent funds of the state. In Virginia there is but one board. 

39 Randolph, op. cit., 54. Ford, Jefferson, VII, 494. "Private enterprize 
manages much better all concerns to which it is equal." Bishop George W. Doane, 
in an address before the Education Convention of Trenton, N. J., January 27, 
1838, indicates the extent to which this fear of government affected progress in 
other states: "It is said that there are prejudices against a Board of Education 
and a Superintendent. We can hardly think they are general. If so our appeal 
is to the good sterling sense of the people of New Jersey. Is there a turnpike 
road, or a steamboat, or a bank, or a cotton factory whose affairs are not entrusted 
to a board of managers? Is there a mill in all the state without a miller, or a 
locomotive in the land without an engineer? Is the education of the people of 
less importance than all these? Or is the system of education to be the only case 
of a machine that goes alone?" Barnard, Report of Commissioner of Ed., 
1867-68, 318, footnote. 

40 This is an interesting parallel to the investigation into and the accusations 
against the English charity funds of the same period. Vide speech of Brougham 
in English Parliament, as quoted in the Richmond Enquirer, April 27, 1818; also 
Hammond, The English Town Labourer, 1760-1825, 56-58. 



52 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

provisions of the Act of 1811. The annual reports clearly 
indicate the difficulties and the ineffective laws governing the 
management of the endowment and the need of a board with 
more time to give to it. Succeeding governors, who were also 
presidents of the board, .urged concerted action on some plan 
of common schools. The tendency, however, was to stress the 
need, as Governor Barbour urged in 181 2, of "some Literary 
Institution," i.e., the higher schools, although it will be re- 
called that the fund at its creation was solemnly dedicated to 
"the sole benefit of a school or schools in each county." 

Jefferson, now in permanent retirement at Monticello, re- 
news his efforts for public education. The " University of 
Virginia" becomes his last great care. In a letter to Peter 
Carr, a trustee of Central College, he outlines his plan for a 
public school system, based, as he said, on a " study of the 
organization of the best seminaries in other countries and with 
the opinions of the most enlightened individuals." His chief 
interest, now, is to give intellectual leadership to the state 
through the establishment of an institution " where every 
branch of science deemed useful at this day, should be taught 
in its highest degree." 41 In referring to the elementary school, 
he insists that "every citizen should receive an education 
proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life," divid- 
ing such citizens, according to custom, into the two traditional 
classes, the "laboring and the learned." Both classes should 
attend the elementary school together, studying "reading, 
writing, arithmetic as far as fractions, roots and ratios, and 
geography." But upon graduation from the elementary 
school, where they study the three r's and geography, the 
two classes separate: 

(1) those destined for labor will engage in the business of 

agriculture or enter apprenticeships of handcrafts. 

(2) their companions, destined to the pursuit of science, 

will proceed to college, where the learned class will 
again subdivide into: 

41 Many years later, Dec. 22, 1824, Jefferson writes Cabell, when the latter 
advises withholding aid from the primary schools, and gives expression to a second 
principle which may account for the failure to put the Poor Schools on a common 
school basis: "Let this with all other intermediate academies be taken up in their 
turn ... to give to that singly will be a departure from principle.''' 



The Literary Fund, 1810 53 

(a) those destined for the learned professions as 

a means of livelihood. 

(b) the wealthy, who may aspire to share in the 

conducting of the affairs of the nation or to 
live with usefulness and respect in the 
private walks of life. 

Both of these sub-sections will require instruction in all the 
higher branches of useful science — language, mathematics, 
and philosophy — but only the professional group will go on 
for further preparation. 

This plan of Jefferson's, so strongly emphasizing the "Gen- 
eral Schools" and giving so small a place to elementary edu- 
cation, helped bring about the widening gap between the 
university party and the classes, particularly in the West, to 
whom the university offered no boon. We find J. C. Cabell 
in the Senate as Jefferson's authorized agent to induce the 
legislature to take over Central College; to promote the in- 
terests of a great and entirely new state institution, "our 
most holy cause," as Cabell later expressed it. That the 
university movement injured the free school movement there 
is no doubt. Much later, in 1822 in fact, Cabell admits that 
"we are at war with democracy and must do something to 
placate the primary school support." 

Both governors' messages and reports of the Literary Fund 
of this period, 1813-15, urge the greater need of higher "semi- 
naries of learning." Although Governor Nichols, in his annual 
message of December, 1815, pleads for legislation creating 
schools "widely and equally distributed through the coun- 
try," he has more in mind the loss to the state of students 
going to other states for academic and collegiate training, 
than the failure of the average child to receive elementary 
education. 
The Report of the Literary Fund for the same years says, 

"This small matter [of loss in money] is not to be compared to our 
young men, estranged by absence from the customs and principles of their 
parents and ancestors, who return in a degree aliens to their native land." 

In response to the request of the legislature of 181 5, for a 
"Plan of Public Education Embracing a University," the 
Literary Fund Board in its report 



54 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

" hails with delight the liberal spirit of improvement which dawns upon 
the country. ... In free states it is necessary that the public will should 
be enlightened. ... It is necessary in the formation of any system of this 
sort to consult the peculiar situation of the country for which it is intended, 
i.e., the state of its population, progress of the arts and sciences . . . and 
above all the means in the power of the state. . . . Former efforts have 
failed owing to no revenues being set aside for the support of such institu- 
tions, and they were made to depend too much on the funds to be extracted 
directly from the people." 42 

On September 27, 1815, the Richmond Enquirer, under the 
able editorship of Thomas Ritchie, 43 inaugurated a column on 
Internal Improvement, with a section devoted to " schools" 
which in this issue states : 

"We bring the subject [schools] forward in this shape. We shall soon 
have occasion to retouch it and put it to the citizens of Richmond, Norfolk, 
etc., why they have so long suffered geniuses to wither or run wild in the 

streets!" 

On December 5, 1S15, Ritchie attempts to stir the legislature: 

"What state is in more need of improvement? Now, Virginians, you 
must rouse, . . . open our rivers, clear the roads, establish schools, etc., 
. . . and the session [legislature] will be revered among the sons of men. 
. . . Who will flinch from his public duty to catch a phantom popularity?" 

On December 14, 1815, an article, signed "An Enthusiast," 
recommends a standing legislative "committee on Seminaries 
of Learning" which might collect data and provide a fund for 
the improvement of schools. On January 13, 1816, it is said 
editorially : 

"The proceedings of the Legislature begin to assume a most interesting 
aspect. The Report ... on the Literary Fund attracts our most anxious 
attention. . . . We are ashamed of the apathy into which she [Virginia] 
has fallen." 

On February 24, 1816, however, the future of public edu- 
cation seemed assured; for a solution to the vexing problem 
of augmenting the Literary Fund without recourse to local 
taxation or direct state appropriation was offered by Charles 
Fenton Mercer, then chairman of the House Committee on 
Finance. He proposed that the General Assembly deposit to 
the credit of the Literary Fund a refund from the United 

42 House Journal, Dec. 6, 1816, Report of Literary Fund. 

43 Thomas Ritchie, "The Father of Virginia journalism" was editor of the 
Richmond Enquirer, 1804-45, and it may be truly said, represented the fore- 
most influence for the spread of Republicanism during that period. Ritchie was 
a strong advocate of internal improvement and public schools. Vide Ambler, 
C. H., Thomas Ritchie. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 55 

States Government of about $400,000; and that all future 
payments from the Federal Government of the loans made 
by Virginia, February 20, 181 2, for the prosecution of the 
War of 181 2, 44 be likewise added to the fund. The sug- 
gestion of the Finance Committee was cast into a bill. It 
passed the House without a division, and was sent up to the 
Senate and "returned two hours after with their con- 
currence." 45 The Literary Fund leaped from less than 
$50,000 to $450,000, with the assurance of becoming $1,000,000 
or more when all the Federal money should be paid. Thus for 
the first time the permanent state fund was large enough to jus- 
tify the preparation of a plan for a state system of schools. 

At the same time that Mr. Mercer proposed this disposition 
of Federal moneys he submitted a resolution 46 asking that 
the state digest a plan for "an University, Colleges, Academies 
and such Schools as shall diffuse the benefits of Education 
throughout the commonwealth." The resolution deplores the 
lethargy of the state, citing the free schools in actual operation 
in the states of New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, and New Hampshire, "where a free school is in 
every town, village, and hamlet for poor children," where 
"large sums of money are annually raised for their support, 
and where it is a peculiar subject of legislation . . . while 
our youth must go North. . . . 47 The Carolinas have made 
much more progress on this subject than Virginia. Humiliat- 
ing, indeed, but it should arouse us from our lethargy. Shall 
we remain tributary to other states?" 48 

The augumented Literary Fund awoke new hope and great 
enthusiasm in the state. Interested friends of primary schools, 
academies, private and denominational colleges, and several 
factions of the university party, alike saw in this enactment a 
chance for state subsidy for their particular interest. The 

44 House Journal, 1816, 177. Charles F. Mercer, as chairman of House Com- 
mittee on Finance, recommended "to lay the foundation of a comprehensive 
system of education . . . (with) the residue of the debt due the commonwealth 
from the U. S." At the same time his committee suggested a plan for "extinguish- 
ing the state debt to the banks of the state." 

45 Mercer, op. cit., xviii. 46 House Journal, 1816, 177. 

47 The author of the resolution is too optimistic; there was no such develop- 
ment in the sparsely settled districts of these states. "Crito" (Rev. Dr. Rice) 
writes that more than $250,000 a year is spent on education of Virginia youth 
outside the state. Argument for University of Virginia, Richmond Enquirer, 
1815. 48 Mercer, op. cit., xviii. 



56 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Enquirer voices the enthusiasm felt throughout the state and 
the approval accorded the legislature for its wise measure. 
On February 28, 1816, it records: 

"The passage of the bill provides that the surplus of the debt due by 
the United States, etc., shall go into the chest of the Literary Fund. . . . 
And thus by one munificent donation a sum estimated by some at $1,200,000 
is to go to the benefit of Education and the improvement of the people! 
It is really delightful to wander through a scene of this description, every 
step you take presents you with some patriotic and high-minded achieve- 
ment. Virginia has Awakened ... a spirit has gone forth which will 
make her happy, useful, and great!" 

On March 2, 18 16, appears an editorial by Thomas Ritchie, 
with the caption: 

"Well done, good and faithful servants." 

"A year ago we said and it was said of us that we were in a state of leth- 
argy. This legislature, however, has provided: (1) a fund for roads and 
rivers, (2) a fund for schools and for internal improvement generally. 
Schools — nearly $1,000,000 is given to this holy purpose, besides the 
$50,000 of the Literary Fund. So great a spring has been given to the hopes 
of the friends of education that the Executive have it in charge to lay a 
scheme before the next General Assembly of a Lmiversity, Colleges, Acad- 
emies and Schools to diffuse the benefits of Education among the people. 
This act alone ought to hand down this legislature to the gratitude of 
posterity." 49 

On March 9, in the special column devoted to Internal Im- 
provements, appears the following, signed by "A plain Farmer 
who knows little of politics." 

"The only mortification I have ever felt as a Virginian has arisen from 
our inattention to the improvement of our country and the education of 
our children. The latter I consider as the basis of morals and of Republican 
government. . . . This reproach will cease, thanks to the wisdom of the last 
Assembly. After awarding first place to those who achieved our Revolution, 
I allot to the Members of the last Assembly the second. Their object was 
not to provide for the Education of the Rich or of the parents living in fa- 
vored parts of the state, but to diffuse . . . free schools in every county, to 
extend those advantages to the offspring of the most indigent, etc." 50 

Other states note this Act of 1816, as the following com- 
pliments from the New York Columbian, which was copied by 
the Enquirer, 51 show: 

Compliments: Liberal Policy of Virginia. 

". . . The course which they [legislators] have traced is so patriotic and so 
pure, the good which they have projected so brilliant, . . . their motives 

49 Richmond Enquirer, March 2, 1816. 50 Ibid., March 9, 1816. 

51 Copied with note by Thomas Ritchie in the Enquirer, March 23, 1816. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 57 

so much elevated above that gross and sordid atmosphere which deliberative 
assemblies so generally breathe, that it is hard to speak without laying our- 
selves open to the imputation of a romantic enthusiasm. Virginia has pro- 
vided for internal improvements with a million dollars, another million for 
schools; maps and charts, the fine arts, armories, and arsenals are provided 
for, too. Well done, Virginia! You have no shallow politician, no crafty 
dissembler in power to exclaim, 'I'll have nothing to do with Jefferson's 
canal! — the opening of this road, or clearing that river.' All labored for 
the public good without reluctance and without equivocation. Admirable, 
Virginia! New York, we trust, will slumber no longer, but Samson-like snap 
the petty withes of party and prejudice which have bound her in a fatal 
apathy." 

The legislature of 18 15-16 adjourned with the prospect 
of making Virginia the first state in the Union to es- 
tablish a modern democratic school system. Governor 
Nichols's message, November n, 1816, is truly eloquent 
with hope: 

"Next to those who planned to accomplish our Revolution the affection 
of their countrymen will rank those who contributed most to the establish- 
ment of a system of Public Education . . . who give the state the greatest 
command of talent, and the individual the best prospect of happiness. 
Genius is not the offspring of wealth alone ... let it be cultivated at the 
public expense, make it a national property that it may be a national 
benefit." 52 

The legislative session of 18 17-18 was to become famous in 
educational annals. It was marked by much enthusiasm, but 
at the same time by a hopeless conflict of educational plans 
and principles. It closed with the university movement and 
the conservative principles of class education in the ascendent. 
Thomas Jefferson made the last great fight of his life through 
Joseph C. Cabell, leader of the Jeffersonian school party in the 
Senate; Charles Fenton Mercer of Loudoun County re- 
mained the brilliant advocate of popular common school edu- 
cation and the representative of western policies in the House 
of Delegates. That Cabell was primarily interested in be- 
ginning with the university as an object of state subsidy, is 
as plain as that Mercer, though interested in a state university, 
was with the popular cause of the lower schools, advocating 
state subsidy of the academies at least, if not the establish- 
ment of primary schools, before the university received its 
share. In 181 7 Jefferson proposed to the legislature his 
scheme to create elementary schools " without taking one cent 

52 House Journal, Nov. 11, 1816, Governor's Message. 



58 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

of the Literary Fund." 53 This time he would coerce the local 
communities into action by these measures: 

(1) make it necessary to read readily in some tongue, 

native or acquired, in order to qualify as a citizen. 

(2) remove the expense by making education free to all. 

(3) strengthen the purpose of the parent by disfranchise- 

ment of his child while uneducated. , 54 

His plan was to declare each county ipso facto divided into 
wards corresponding to the militia captaincies. At a full 
muster of each company the meaning of the law should be 
explained and the location and establishment of a school put 
to the popular vote of the ward. With this done, the people 
should meet, as they did to build roads, etc., and build a log 
schoolhouse, having already taken a roll of those children who 
would attend and could pay the small tuition. These latter 
would probably be able to support a common teacher, who 
would instruct gratis the few who otherwise would be deprived 
of school privileges. Should there be a deficiency, the ward, 
in common, might easily supplement it. Great effort was made 
to convince the people of their ability to carry this small burden of 
tax. Jefferson, it may be repeated, would leave the establish- 
ment and maintenance of schools to local management rather 
than to the governor and his council, "whom," he said, "the 
people well might fear." 55 

It is interesting to note the reception of this proposal. It 
was regarded by some as a very good bill in "theory." Cabell 
writes: "The Primary School Bill has been read with much 
admiration, but I fear great difficulties will arise out of the 
sparseness of the population of the country." 56 He sug- 

53 House Journal, 1817; Randolph, op. cit., 79. It is interesting to note the 
consistency of his decentralization policy and the practical motive behind this 
plan. He writes Cabell, Sept. 9, 181 7: "If twelve or fifteen hundred schools are 
to be placed under one general administration, an attention so divided will amount 
to a dereliction of them to themselves. It is surely better, then, to place each 
school at once under the care of those most interested in its conduct. In this way 
the Literary Fund is left untouched to complete the whole system of education by 
establishing a college in every district of about eighty miles square for the second 
grade of education, to wit, language, ancient and modern; and for the third grade, 
a single University in which the sciences shall be taught in the highest degree." 

54 Suggested, he says, by a similar provision he had read in a current proposed 
change in franchise in Spain — vide letters to Chevalier de Onis. Henderson: 
Jefferson on Public Education, 29. 

55 Randolph, op. cit., 54, 55. 56 Ibid., Dec. 3, 1816, 86. 



The Literary Fund, 1810 59 

gested that the bill be included in those then before the legis- 
lature calling for an university and colleges. To some critics, 
the clause demanding as a qualification for citizenship the 
ability to read — a present-day prerequisite to franchise in 
Virginia — appeared too rigorous. 57 But it was the principle 
of local taxation on property that the well-to-do eastern Vir- 
ginian, anxious for higher schools, was reluctant to accept. 
This attitude is vouched for in a letter from Cabell to Jefferson. 58 

"I have engaged in conferring with some of the ablest men in Richmond 
on the subject of your bills. There was but one opinion in regard to the 
propriety of having an university; a pretty general concurrence as to the 
expediency of colleges; . . . but a great contrariety as to the practicability 
and expediency of primary schools; and with respect to the mode of or- 
ganizing them, if admitted to be practicable and expedient." 

As these letters are confidential messages their value is high 
as evidence of the true state of mind of both Jefferson and the 
" ablest men of Richmond," as Mr. Cabell selected them. 
Mr. Jefferson in his reply to this letter states very positively 
that, in spite of his great desire to erect a state university, he 
would rather see an adequate scheme of primary schools in 
operation in the state ; 59 and that it was for this reason he 
would teach the parents the meaning of public education by 
penalizing their sons till they were better equipped to partici- 
pate in the affairs of a democracy. 

Mercer and Jefferson, in hearty accord as to the fundamental 
necessity of popular education, differed radically concerning 
the method of achieving it. 60 As opposed to Jefferson's in- 
sistent idea that the maintenance and conduct of schools be 
left entirely to local initiative, Mercer argued for state support 
to obviate the burden of local tax; and for some degree of 
state control and direction without which local apathy could 
never be overcome. He clearly set forth in his resolution 
praying for a digest of a public school system, that state sub- 
sidy would, if all the Literary Fund were devoted to common 

57 Randolph, op. cit., Dec. 29, 1817, 91. 58 Ibid., 91. 

59 Ibid., Jan. 1818-20, 267. Jefferson states elsewhere (vide p. 86) that it is 
important to begin with the university, and, throughout the Cabell fight in the 
Senate, gives his assent to plans which favored this principle and obstructed legisla- 
tion for the lower schools. 

60 As part of the Resolution, Senate Journal, Jan. 10, 1816, Mr. Mercer wished: 
(1) to begin with the establishment of primary schools; (2) he felt the most prac- 
ticable method of creating such schools was through the state assumption of a 
portion of the expense and control. See p. 61 f . for Mr. Jefferson's view. 



60 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

schools, create a complete school system in fifty years, without 
the local tax called for in Jefferson's bills. Moreover, such 
state subsidy might be used as a reward for the more progres- 
sive counties and a stimulant to the conservative. In either 
case, experience, he felt, justified a strong motive for taxation 
for schools. His resolution also points out that if interest 
were allowed to accumulate until 182 1, say, the Literary Fund 
principal would be $1,019,535; $83,841 could be counted 
upon as interest for 182 1. Thereafter, $70,000 should be ap- 
propriated from the interest for primary schools, the surplus 
($13,841) being added to the principal. In the" first year 
$70,000 would build a schoolhouse in each county (at a cost 
of $600 each). In ten years, by 1830, there would be $1,223,- 
299 available for school purposes; and yet $700,000 would 
have been spent in the education of not fewer than 50,000 poor 
youth of our state. In thirty years, by 1850, " we might have 
. . . two hundred free schools, and two colleges, entirely at 
public expense; with no cost to the local tax-payer be he rich 
or poor." Finally, he thought that by 1866 — it was in 1869 
that the post-bellum free school system was created' — we 
might easily have "free schools in every hamlet." 

Mr. Mercer has left us a clear statement of his position on 
the question of state school support. 61 He advocated two 
means of taxation, direct and indirect. In his Princeton ad- 
dress, 1826, he cites Connecticut and the progress made in 
New York State as evidence that the diffusion of popular 
education is stimulated by a scheme of state aid, plus vol- 
untary taxation, based upon rewards and bonuses, and fails 
if left entirely to local support and initiative. Massachusetts 
was an example he would not imitate — because she depended 
upon coercive taxation, 62 the state penalizing only the in- 
corporated towns which failed to tax themselves adequately 
for schools. 63 As he himself put it, he preferred the "principle 
of reward rather than punishment." He would have the state 
offer aid from the permanent fund only to such communities 
as would first tax themselves to get it. He felt that the "de- 
sire to participate in the benefits of the State Fund" would 

61 Mercer, op. cit., 71. Vide Mercer argument in Senate Journal, Feb. 24, 
1816,71. ™ Ibid., 53, 55. 

63 Ibid., 53, "From 1647 on, there were numerous complaints in the Massa- 
chusetts legislature because the towns failed to tax themselves for public education." 



The Literary Fund, 1810 61 

be adequate incentive to communities to exercise this un- 
usually odious duty of self-taxation. 64 He was appealed to 
by "the economy of administration of the northern systems." 
This economy he found (1) in the distribution and permanency 
of their schoolhouses ; (2) in the low cost of teachers as com- 
pared to the waste entailed in the fee school; (3) in the equal 
and general diffusion of opportunity and in the improvement 
in the quality of class-room instruction. 

Subsequent development in this state has seemed to justify 
Mercer's claim that people left to tax themselves move slowly 
toward good schools. In January, 1818, Cabell writes Jef- 
ferson that there is a fear that "neither the people nor their 
representatives" would agree to a plan of assessment in the 
proposed wards for the expense of local schools." 65 Cabell 
was, perhaps, clearer on this point than his mentor. However, 
Jefferson demands consistently, "What expense! except build- 
ing a log house which would employ the labourers of the ward 
three days in twenty years; . . . for food two days' subsistence 
per family a year . . . and $150 a year in cash for the whole 
ward." He proceeds then to show that such a system would 
cost less than the sporadic "English elementary schools," 
found here and there in the state. With forty children be- 
tween the ages of nine and twelve, in each militia district of 
about five hundred people, the cost per pupil would be $2.28 
($150 divided by 67, the number of families) and all children 
would be educated without the brand of pauperism. Under 
the system of private schools then in vogue the teachers, he 
tells us, charged from $20 to $30 per child (formerly it had 
been only 20 to 30 shillings). On the same basis, if all children 
were in school under the existing system, the cost of each school 
would be $1000, instead of $150 and maintenance of the teacher; 
or $15 a year per family instead of $2.28. This meant a gross 
cost to the state of $1,200,000 per year under the old system, 

64 Mercer, op. cit., " Contrast New York and Virginia. New York puts her fund, 
founded in 1812, in operation in 1816. In that year New York, with but $50,000 
plus local taxation, educated 140,000 children, and by 1826 owned 8000 school- 
houses, etc. In 1826, 435,350 children were in school. In 1826 Connecticut, 
with $72,000, cared for all her youth, 85,000, at a cost of two dollars per child 
(which exceeded the ratio of New York). Virginia created her fund in 18 10 and 
applied it in 1818. In 1826 the annual cost per child was nine dollars and only 
10,000 — a moiety of the total number in need — were enrolled as indigent." 
This, of course, did not include the pay pupils in the various schools not under 
state bounty. 65 Randolph, op. cit., 94, 102. 



62 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

in contrast with $180,000 under the proposed system, — a 
difference of more than $1,000,000 annually which might be 
saved the state. Moreover, in the new system a man would 
be taxed - — here the planter and smallest farmer shrank alike 
at the word, no doubt — according to his holdings, and yet 
all would receive benefit of the tax; i.e., the poor would re- 
ceive education, the rich improved conditions through a more 
enlightened electorate and neighborhood. 66 

We have interrupted the story of the fortunes of the aug- 
mented Literary Fund, 181 5-18, to give in some detail the 
fundamental differences in the positions of Mr. Jefferson and 
Mr. Mercer. It is, perhaps, not an unfair generalization to 
say that Mr. Jefferson cherished a theory, the dream of a 
social state, the perfecting of which depended upon the method 
of administering public education quite as much as upon the 
fact of its creation. Apparently Mr. Mercer, with those 
Virginians who shared his views, with equal faith in democracy, 
offered a practical program to meet immediate conditions. 
He was intent upon forcibly carrying the schools to the people, 
if necessary, and he was willing to trust the management of 
the schools to representatives of the people. 

Lacking the training in the history of township self-govern- 
ment and holding the traditions of apprenticeship education, 
neither the rich nor the poor of Virginia were likely to go far 
out of their way or deep into their pockets to systematize the 
scattered, expensive, and inefficient private English or ele- 
mentary school system. In truth, no such local initiative had 
developed in the Northern states, cited so often by Virginians 
as examples to follow. In New York and Connecticut, where 
efficient state public school systems were being organized, 
centralization of state authority and state subsidy was neces- 
sary to enkindle enthusiasm for local taxation and for educa- 
tion. 67 Where too much was left to the community and the 
state assumed only a coercive policy, as in Massachusetts, 
we have the school conditions that aroused James G. Carter 
and Horace Mann to efforts that have become known as "The 
Common School Revival." 

fi6 Randolph, op. cil., 105. 

67 Mercer, op. cit., 51 et seq., able criticism of American state school fund ad- 
ministration in 1826. 



CHAPTER V 

EFFORTS TO CREATE A STATE FREE SCHOOL SYSTEM, 1815-18, 
ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE LITERARY FUND. A SYSTEM 
OF STATE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE 
POOR SUBSTITUTED BY THE ACT OF 1818 

The creation of the $1,000,000 Literary Fund for the avowed 
purposes of Public Education and the general enthusiasm for 
internal improvement gave new heart to the progressive ele- 
ment in the state. A new chapter in the evolution of the state 
may, indeed, be said to have begun. The characteristic 
pessimism of the period was lifted. The West, and the news- 
papers friendly to internal improvement, hailed the activity 
of the legislature of 1815-16 as evidence of a new era; for a 
permanent fund for Public Works had been created at about 
the same time the Literary Fund was augmented. 1 

Three great questions confronted the state: (1) How should 
the Literary Fund be administered and how augmented to 
create a threefold system of schools without resorting to local 
taxation, which the majority agreed was odious and impracti- 
cable? (2) Should the fund, if augmented by local supplement 
or additional state appropriation, go to the fulfillment of the 
Acts of 1810, 181 1, 181 2, or to a new system open and free to 
all, rich and poor alike? (3) Should state aid go first to the 
creation of new academies and to the existing struggling private 
ones, or should stress be placed upon a great university to 
promulgate the arts and sciences, or should primary education 
be first cared for out of the new fund? In all three questions 
there lay the demand of the democrat for new educational 
facilities and ran the fear of the conservative that great danger 

1 The Board of Public Works, with a permanent endowment of over $1,000,000 
was organized Feb. 15, 18 16. Unlike the Literary Fund Board, there were di- 
rectors from each of the four natural geographical divisions of the state that "just 
and equitable distribution and application of the fund for every section of the 
commonwealth" might be secured. C. F. Mercer, W. L. Lewis, and Thomas 
Jefferson represented the section from "Blue Ridge to Tidewater." Such a dis- 
tribution of the Literary Fund Board had been urged. 

63 



64 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

lay in " change in the principle of education," that is, in a 
change from the scheme sanctioned by colonial policy and 
property interests, to that of state-supported common schools 
for all. 

In the search for a solution of these puzzling problems, the 
Mercer and Jefferson factions, reflecting fundamental national 
party attitudes, had more to fear in each other than in the old- 
fashioned gentleman who wanted no change but desired no fight. 
The conservative was in reality in the minority, and had the 
two factions agreed upon a practical plan of state school admin- 
istration, there can be no doubt that Virginia would have dis- 
tinguished herself among the commonwealths. This will be 
evident in the brilliant but disappointing struggle in the legisla- 
tures of 181 5 and 181 7, culminating in the distribution of the 
Literary Fund revenue by the act of February 21, 1818. 

This struggle began with a serious effort on the part of state 
officials to establish a state system based on the best experience 
of the time. On May 30, 181 5 Governor W. C. Nichols, as 
president of the Literary Fund Board and by vote of the 
General Assembly, had addressed a letter to a number of 
distinguished gentlemen asking for practical suggestions. 
Replies were received from James Monroe, then Secretary of 
State of the United States, Thomas Cooper of Carlyle 
College, President J. A. Smith of William and Mary, President 
Timothy Dwight of Yale, and Dr. Samuel F. Mitchell of 
New York. Dr. Mitchell submitted a comprehensive "out- 
line of a system of Public Education." Dr. Smith advocated 
the " education of teachers at the expense of the state and a 
vigilant system of superintendence," as essentials to the new 
scheme. Replies from these gentlemen, supplemented by sug- 
gestions from several state leaders, became the basis of the 
Plan for a General System of Education ordered by the 
General Assembly and presented on December 10, 1816, as 
part of the Report and Digest of the President and Directors 
of the Literary Fund. This report shows that former efforts 
for schools failed because "no revenue was set aside; schools 
were made to depend on funds to be extracted directly from 
the people. . . . The [proposed] system adopts means not 
burdensome to the community. ... A happy feature is that 
vice and immortality are made to pay involunary tribute to 



State vs. Local Control 65 

virtue and to provide means of their own extinction." 2 On 
the day the Digest was presented the Richmond Enquirer 
printed it in full, with the following comment under the 
caption education: 

"We submit the report 3 with great pleasure. Without education we 
cannot preserve our liberty. The people must know their rights to make 
their officers respect them. This is too clear to require proof, the only 
question is how are good schools to be established ... we are not 
sure how far government ought to proceed in providing everything — for 
higher schools particularly. Surely there is no subject so well entitled to 
the consideration of a free People." 

Mr. Mercer led in a plan to increase the Literary Fund 
sufficiently to meet all the needs of a general system at once. 
This the Committee of Schools and Colleges of the House 
proposed to do by a system of State Literary Fund Banks, 
the bonus or profit of which was to go to the Literary Fund. 
The bill provided for twenty-three banks, with a total capital 
of $7,296,000, $2,200,000 from the Literary Fund and $5,000,000 
in stock to be issued to private individuals. 

This plan was assailed by the Republicans 4 as "a paper 
system." Mr. Blackburn 5 thought the Literary Fund — 
"the last hope of the country" — ought not to be connected 
with "these usurious, gambling institutions." He asked the 
Assembly what would be thought of its incorporating "a 
gambling house or houses of ill-fame in every county on con- 
dition of their paying a bonus to the use of the Literary Fund." 
There were many newspaper attacks upon the proposed sys- 
tem, arising chiefly, no doubt, from the fevered attitude toward 
the national bank question which had for some time troubled 
Congress. Tazewell, Colston, and Mercer vigorously sup- 
ported the bill. The latter pointed out that the hope of school 
success depended upon increasing the Literary Fund. It 
would be impossible, he said, to carry into execution the great 
objects which he hoped for, viz., one university, four colleges, 
twenty-five academies and primary schools established over 
the state, aid for William and Mary and existing academies, 
without, at least, $700,000 more than the Literary Fund offered 
as it stood. He "pressed most earnestly its adoption," ob- 

2 Cf. Mercer's (p. 60) and Jefferson's plan (p. 58) supporting primary schools! 

3 House Journal, Feb. 24, 1816, Report of Literary Fund Board. 

4 Alexandria Herald, Jan. io, 181 7. 5 Ibid. 



66 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

serving that he knew of " several liberal-minded and patriotic 
individuals in this city [Richmond] who will aid the bank and 
one who will give $5000 to help endow the institution. In 
less than four years there would be $2,000,000 free of debt 
which might be employed to cover the state with primary 
schools. . . . Unless the Banks are established or the real 
estate — held by the Literary Fund Board — sold, there can 
be no appropriation for schools. It is better to invest the 
money in bank stock and expect to clear 8% or 9%." The 
Virginia Herald recording the debate in the Assembly, reports: 

"If this matter were not adopted he [Mercer] would take it for granted 
that the Legislature was willing to defer till a later period the execution of 
the great system devised for the Literary Fund. ... He was in favor of 
$100,000 every year for the immediate establishment of schools, an object 
peculiarly dear to his heart . . . and conjured the House to look at the state 
of our schools and compare them with those of Scotland, France, Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York, whose schools ought 
to put a Virginian to the blush. . . . He invoked the House on behalf of 
the orphan and the poor." 6 

The Literary Fund Bank Bill passed the House, January 7, 
181 7, by an overwhelming vote of 80 yeas and 8 noes, but was 
killed in the Senate by a small margin of those who favored 
the university movement. The new school system must needs 
be established with the interest on $1,000,000 or not at all. 

On January 11 , Mr. Garnett offered an amendment to the 
"Digest of the Literary Fund Board" proposing a Board of 
Public Instruction to supplement the duties of the board in 
the investment and disbursement of the fund. 7 A substitute 8 
for the digest and the several bills reported by the school 
committee, and still before the House, was proposed on Feb- 
ruary 15, by Mercer. Two articles of this General Education 
Bill sealed its fate as far as both Cabell and the conservative 
wing of the Senate were concerned; i.e., the proposed western 
site of the state university and the large concessions to the 

6 Fredericksburg, Virginia Herald, Jan. i, 1817, on Report of Proceedings of 
General Assembly. 

7 West Virginia has such an independent Board, see footnote p. 51. 

8 This substitute is printed with the pamphlet "Sundry Documents on the 
Subject of a System of Public Education," referred to in the preceding paragraph. 
On reading it, Jefferson said, under date of Oct. 24, 181 7, to Cabell, "A serious 
perusal of the bill convinces me that unless something less extravagant could be 
devised the whole undertaking must fail. The primary schools, alone, on that 
plan would exhaust the whole fund; the colleges as much more and an university 
would never come into question." His "plan for a system of Primary Schools 
without aid from the Fund" is a result of this letter. 



State vs. Local Control 67 

demands of the Western members of the House of Delegates 
who had voted for the Literary Fund Banks. Cabell and 
Jefferson were now actively pressing the claims of Central 
College near Monticello as the site of the new university. 
Mercer had agreed "at the last moment," as he phrased it 
years later, to stipulate in his bill that the university be 
located in the Shenandoah Valley, "not more than three miles 
from the great Valley road leading from Winchester to 
Abingdon." The bill provided: 

(1) A State "Board of Public Instruction" of ten members; 

"only two of whom shall be elected from Tidewater" or 
Eastern Virginia, the rest to represent the other 
three divisions of the state. 9 

(2) This board shall regard the primary school as its founda- 

tion, no money to be given the higher schools u while 
the primary schools are unprovided for ." 

(3) The state shall be divided into townships and trustees 

elected by the county courts. 

(4) The Literary Fund directors shall give $200 for a 

teacher and $10 for books to every township which 
has provided a lot of two acres to the value of $200 
and a house thereon to the value of $250, and has 
conveyed the same to the president and directors 
of the Literary Fund, elected a teacher, etc. 

(5) "All free, white children . . . shall be entitled to free 

tuition," but the trustees may demand tuition from 
"such parents and guardians as are able to pay 
without inconvenience." 

(6) Nothing shall be given to the academies from the 

Literary Fund unless such quota shall be supple- 
mented by them. 

(7) Three new colleges, Pendleton, Wythe, and Henry, 

shall, be located beyond Tidewater [two in the 
present state of West Virginia and one in Northern 
Piedmont]. 

(8) Support to three denominational colleges, two in the 

East and one in the lower Valley [William and 
Mary, Hampden-Sidney and Washington are em- 
braced in the system to be created by this act]. 

9 Cf. organization of Board of Public Works, footnote, p. 63. 



68 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

(9) The president and directors of the Literary Fund 
shall continue to be guardians of that fund, but 
the new board shall take over the management of 
the new system. 

The Mercer substitute was enthusiastically supported by 
the West and passed the House, but was defeated in the Senate 
February 20, by a tie vote — seven to seven — after Cabell 
had endeavored to amend it in favor of the Charlottesville 
site for the university. 10 On the following day Mr. Taylor, 
a Jefferson agent in the House, moved that three thousand 
copies of the chief documents and proposals for popular educa- 
tion heretofore presented be printed for the use of the General 
Assembly and be spread throughout the state. A pamphlet 
was published subsequently by the president and directors of 
the Literary Fund containing: 

(1) Jefferson's Bill for the more General Diffusion of 

Knowledge, 1779. 

(2) Jefferson's letter of 18 14 to Peter Carr on the subject 

of Education. 

(3) The report of the president and directors of the Lit- 

erary Fund to the legislature of 18 16-17. 

(4) Mercer's General Education Bill providing for the 

Establishment of Primary Schools, Academies, 
Colleges and University (which passed the House, 
but was rejected by the Senate, February 20, 181 7). 

(5) Suggestions made by the Senate in rejecting the latter 

bill. 
Thus, a long and laborious session of the legislature was 
compelled to adjourn without having adopted a plan. No 
faction was pleased and the future of both the proposed uni- 
versity and common schools was in doubt. Mr. Ritchie, 
of the Enquirer, sums up the work of the legislators: "Let 
the truth be told. They spent much time in doing very little 
good. . . . They have attempted to do many things which 
finally ended in smoke." He divides their work into "good 

10 The Virginia Senate contained twenty-four seats, twenty of which repre- 
sented Tidewater and Piedmont; four, that part west of the Alleghanies. This 
made it possible in the Senate to negate the acts of the more popular branch of the 
Assembly. It gave rise to epithets of "Eastern Don," "black" or "negro" Senate 
hurled at. that body by the West in their contest for a revision of the State Con- 
stitution. 



State vs. Local Control 69 

acts, injudicious acts, and abortions." The chief abortion 
of the House was the attempt to create Literary Fund Banks, 
which he considered discredited real efforts to establish schools. 
He praises the defeat of the Booker motion to use the Lit- 
erary Fund for state debt; 11 a so may it fare with every 
similar attempt to annihilate or abridge the legitimate power 
of this sacred fund." He is pleased that the "Bill for Primary 
Schools, Colleges and an University was defeated, as it was of 
doubtful value to the cause." 12 

The Enquirer, during the sitting of the 181 6-1 7 legislature, 
is filled with articles on educational agitation as it was heard 
in the Senate and stimulated in the state by these debates. 
The editor gave a permanent column to the topic. Mr. 
Cabell wrote under the pen name "A Friend of Science," in 
support of the university. Mr. Jefferson's own plans found 
their way into its columns through Mr. Cabell, as their cor- 
respondence indicates. On February 18, 181 7, appears a 
letter on "Public Education" which attacks the General 
Education Bill at several points, particularly the provision 
for a State Board of Public Instruction. 

"The Bill assumes that government ought to take the business of educa- 
tion into its own hands, not only for primary schools for the poor . . . but 
for all classes. Is it very clear that government ought to do this? Have 
the practical effects been beneficial elsewhere? The Bill settles this with 
a dash of the pen, but the writer believes that there are doubts and dif- 
ficulties in this great question which ought for the present deter the legisla- 
ture from meddling with it. . . . Great European institutions of state support 
are always the last retreat of error. 13 . . . Great men of Europe have been 
produced by the tutorial scheme wherein individuality is developed." 

The author of this letter ends his argument by calling the 
proposed Board of Public Instruction a "college of cardinals 
— a political monster of an imperium in intperio." He re- 
veals himself as a conservative churchman in his fear that the 
literature of the whole country will be subjected to this Board; 
"and it may by degrees, which the public eye surely discerns, 

11 Mr. Booker, of Prince Edward, moved to dissolve the Literary Fund and re- 
turn the money to the state treasury for the payment of state debt, "thus reducing 
state taxes 20 per cent." This motion was vigorously opposed by Mr. Scott and 
Mr. Mercer, and decisively voted down by the House. Vide House Journal for 
Feb. 14, 181 7; Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 15, 181 7; Virginia Herald, Feb. 19, 181 7. 

12 Mr. Ritchie has reference to Mr. Mercer's amendment. He may betray his 
idea here in the word "cause" — his insistence that the academies should receive 
the first bounty of the state. 

13 Cites Adam Smith as authority. 



70 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

train opinion to its own purposes — to the hurt I might 
add of true religion. The Friends of Education must prove 
themselves." 

The most striking and complete evidence of the spirit and 
philosophies that dominated the troubled legislature of 1816-17 
lies in the controversy published in the Enquirer between two 
correspondents: " A Constituent who Doubts concerning the 
Merits of the Proposed System of Public Education" and a 
writer signing himself "Virginian" who presents a " Vindica- 
tion of the Proposed System from the Doubts of a Constituent" 14 
The former contributes nine articles and a supplement; the lat- 
ter, a series of six replies. An analysis of these opposing views 
will lay bare the chief cause of difference in the legislature and 
of the failure to provide state legislation for the middle class. 
"A Constituent" uses for all his articles the one text: 

"But in this [Virginia] government though man might be happy he will 
not always, nor indeed ever, be satisfied. He will reach at perfection 
absolute and unqualified. He forgets that theoretical perfection in govern- 
ment and practical oppression are closely allied. He will be more than man 
and become less." 

The writer protests against the proposed change in the principle 
of education from private initiative to compulsion by the state. 
"Some of the private rights of education are to be converted 
into public rights." And he sees "in the trustees of the new 
primary system, fifty-four at least and perhaps not less than 
two thousand complete demi-corporations with powers in per- 
petuity the most delicate, indefinite and irresponsible." To this 
"Virginian" answers that these trustees elected annually would 
have no power beyond the selecting and removing of teachers. 

"A Constituent" sees a danger that three years' schooling 
will disturb the social status quo by throwing the mechanical 
arts into the hands of the slaves, i.e., the effect of education 
will be to diminish the disposition for labor and skill and to 
encourage sloth and idleness! Again, he considers the new 
plan inferior to the Poor Law, which provides sustenance for 
the whole life of the child, while the new system aims to pro- 
vide instruction for only a brief period. 15 Third, he fears the 

14 It is difficult to determine the real authors of these letters. 

15 Best statement of the conservative view. "Vindication" admits in his reply 
that he thinks every boy should pay something, as they do in Scotland, i.e., educa- 
tion " should be cheap but not gratuitous." This is Mercer's view also. 



State vs. Local Control 71 

proposed State Board of Public Instruction as "an engine of 
power that will be wielded against the people finally." 

The answer of "Virginian" is interesting, for he points out 
that the board of the Literary Fund has proved inadequate 
to administer a system of education, while the county courts 
are improper agents for this purpose because: (1) of the 
largeness of their territory and (2) the permanence in tenure 
of office and consequent apathy, differences in individualities, 
changes in the courts, and (3) the fact that the courts have 
already been tried and found wanting as agents for the pro- 
motion of schools. 16 To "A Constituent's" final objection 
that Virginia is trying to copy European countries, particularly 
England, "Virginian" retorts: 

"Her [England's] object is to preserve her monarchical form of govern- 
ment. The exclusive education of the rich is her mode. Our object is to 
preserve our Republican form and our mode should be the education of the 
whole. Unfortunately ... in Virginia, hunters of popularity cry, ' in- 
novation! theory! philosophy! tax! ' no sooner than any plan of public im- 
provement is stated by friends of philanthropy." 17 

"A Constituent" submits, finally, his counter-project to all 
bills pending in the General Assembly. This project, to estab- 
lish a university near Charlottesville and put the rest of the 
Literary Fund into academies, new colleges and the existing 
colleges, excludes all provision for primary schools. The at- 
tempt to provide for these schools he considers was responsi- 
ble for all the difficulties in making proper application of the 
Literary Fund. He gives as reasons for advocating this plan. 

"(1) It is simple and practicable; (2) It violates no private right nor 
assumes the discharge of any private duty; (3) It is the discharge of an 
appropriate government function. . . . It is the duty of the government to 
supply only that which the citizens cannot provide in a private capacity . . . 
it is an unnatural' principle to compel one man to contribute to the educa- 
tion of another's child!" (4) The commonwealth does not need primary 
schools, but is greatly in need of the higher and more profound knowledge 
of the sciences, for only one-half of those engaged in the professions and 
public service in Virginia are qualified by education." 

A resolution in keeping with the sentiments of "A Con- 
stituent" just quoted was presented by the Committee of 

16 Act of Dec. 22, 1796. "How many of the Magistrates now (1818) of the 
County Courts even know of the law of 17Q6 on this subject?" It was, of course, 
still a statute, but " Vindication " doubts that any know of it. 

17 Another current and frequently given argument against "change in principle 
of education." 



72 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Schools and Colleges at the same time that the General Edu- 
cation Bill was before the House. This resolution inquired 
into the expediency of enacting a general law governing all 
funds of whatever character now in the hands of the overseers 
of the poor of the various counties, and pledging such funds to 
the endowment of schools, the "said schools to be established 
in the counties where such funds may be, and the overseers 
of the poor to hold the same as trustees for that purpose." 
This resolution may be regarded as a forecast of the Act of 
1818, which gave the greater portion of the Literary Fund for 
the education of the poor. 

The tendency to maintain distinctions in the education of 
the rich and poor, the fear that change in education would 
involve danger in civil government, and the dread of tax are, 
as we have seen, characteristic of the literature of protest 
against free schools. The reactionary spirit in Virginia was 
supplemented and made formidable by a multitude of sectional 
and denominational interests. It was not so simple a matter 
as the clash of an aristocratic Tidewater with the democratic 
populace of the West. Political partisanship was pronounced 
and was behind the less fundamental differences that obscured 
the question of common schools. The correspondence of Jef- 
ferson and Cabell, 1815-26, is full of the ways and means of 
obviating petty movements that threaten the " cause." 

As soon as the idea of a new state university had been popu- 
larized sufficiently to justify the legislature in calling for a 
plan, at least four parties made effort to secure the designa- 
tion of it for their locality. 18 William and Mary in the east 
and Washington College at Lexington in the southwest 
claimed it; for over twenty years Jefferson had nourished an 
establishment near Charlottesville for this purpose, only to 
have Staunton, with strong western support and good argument, 
contest his claim. More than this, the western counties, in 
clamoring for a convention to remedy the inequality of repre- 
sentation, seriously obstructed legislation for other purposes. 19 
A movement arose to remove the state capital from Richmond 
to Staunton or to some point in the west. 20 Another party 
advocated a rehabilitation of the College of William and Mary 

18 Randolph, op. cit., 433, 117. 20 Ibid., Jan. 22, 1818, 109, 117. 

19 Ibid. Vide footnote, 25. 



State vs. Local Control 73 

by removing it to Richmond and remodeling it. Arguments 
were rife on the relative desirability of Richmond and Norfolk 
as centers for a state medical school, which Jefferson had 
planned as one department of the new university at Charlottes- 
ville. Advocates of a state subsidized primary school system 
continued their fight \ others would have the academies re- 
ceive the first attention of the state. Trading of votes among 
the delegates, and clever manipulation of sectional and re- 
ligious prejudices to sway popular opinion, were dominant in 
the legislature that opened in December, 1817. 21 

Early in the session, Samuel Taylor, a delegate in the House 
from Chesterfield County, reintroduced Jefferson's plan for a 
general system of education. It was, as Mr. Cabell says, 
" heartily supported by a group in both houses." A Primary 
School Bill appeared in apparent opposition to Jefferson's 
plan. This bill had been the order of the day in previous 
legislatures but was each day put off " till to-morrow " and never 
voted on. Cabell, in the interests of the university, made an 
effort to harmonize the differences of his and the primary 
school party proposals in the House, but failed. He writes 
Jefferson, "If I had the cooperation of four or five men, every 
thing could be effected" and suggests, as he had formerly 
done, a movement to send the "right men" to the House the 
following session. 22 He reports a "dreary prospect," and op- 
position from "back country members." 23 

Advantage of these differences was taken by Mr. Hill, of 
King and Queen County, who on February 11 brought in a 
substitute for all school bills pending. 24 This substitute was 
not a compromise. Without mentioning the higher schools 
at all, it delegated the Literary Fund revenue to the care of 
certain local officers or commissioners who would replace the 
Overseers of the Poor — who in turn had replaced the Colonial 
Church vestry — in providing a plan for the elementary edu- 
cation of poor children of each county. The day following 
the introduction of this substitute, the editor of the Enquirer, 
disgusted with this policy in contrast with the larger purposes 
of Jefferson's bills, says: 

21 Ibid., Feb. 6, 13, 1818, 177, 123. 24 House Journal, Feb. n, 1818. 

22 Ibid., Jan. 5, 23, Feb. 6, 1818, 100, in, 123. 

23 Ibid., Jan. 23, 1818, in. 



74 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

"The House committee on schools adopts a substitute [Feb. n] brought 
in by Mr. Hill of King and Queen for all other bills. The substitute does 
not mention academies, colleges, or an university, but appropriates the 
greater part of the revenue of the Literary Fund to commissioners who are 
to establish schools for poor children in each county to be taught the three 
R's. . . . Does not the solid interest of this state strongly protest against 
the application of the whole Literary Fund to the object of the proposed 
bill? We want academies. We want schools for teaching the higher 
branches, we want men who can do more than read, write and cipher. We 
want light to save this beloved land from the gloom of ignorance and de- 
generacy ... let us assist the poor, but let us do more, let us assist the 
genius of our countrymen." 25 

The reactionary effort to appropriate a small sum for the 
education of the poor and devote the rest to the payment of 
state debts was renewed. Mr. Hill's substitute, however, 
passed the House, and in the Senate, as Mr. Cabell says, "we 
engrafted upon it a provision for an University and it passed 
15 to 3." 26 On February 21, 1818, this substitute, an "Act 
Appropriating Part of the Revenue of the Literary Fund and 
for Other Purposes," 27 became a law. By it $15,000 was 
allowed annually for the support of the university (and sub- 
sequently $230,000 by appropriation from state revenue), 
while $45,000 annually was given to the education of poor 
children. 28 

Under this statute the new schools were to be governed by 
fifteen school commissioners in each county, appointed by the 
courts and constituting a corporate body for the management 
of the local quota of the Literary Fund, a sort of county or 
city school board but with very indefinite responsibilities 
compared to the Massachusetts' School Committee. The 
entire forty-five thousand dollars — deducting less than 
fifteen hundred dollars for expense of distributing it — was to 
be divided on demand among the counties and cities of the 
state. The money, funds, debts due them, and all other 
property held up to that time by the overseers of the poor and 
derived from the sale and forfeiture of the glebe lands, was 
assumed by the new commissioners for educational purposes. 
Only children of indigent parents were to benefit from the fund 

25 Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 12, 1818. 27 House Journal, Feb. 21, 1818. 

26 Randolph, Feb. 20, 1818, 125. 

28 In 1826 C. F. Mercer says of this: "The erection of the University of Virginia 
has been executed at such a cost to the Literary Fund ... as to impair its ability 
to sustain a system of primary schools coextensive with the territory and wants of 
the commonwealth." Popular Education, appendix, xviii. 



State vs. Local Control 75 

and only such of these as the quota would support. The laws 
governing apprenticeship, colonial Virginia's chief provision 
for public education, continued in force. Masters were not 
relieved of the duty of education or of sending their apprentices 
to school at their own expense. The advance involved in the 
new law lay in providing public education beyond the ap- 
prenticeship and beyond the local legislation for the poor. 

Thus the new era, prophesied in 181 6, was not realized. A 
state free school system for all classes was not created, there 
had been no " change in principle" of administration, nor 
was public taxation for education accepted. Nevertheless, a 
second step may be said to have been taken in the evolution 
of public education. The state had assumed in principle the 
control of those schools and pupils accepting the provisions of 
the new act. Virginia had launched a quasi-system of primary 
free schools. The future of the common schools in the state 
must rest upon an evolution of this law. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE OPERATION OF THE LITERARY FUND PRIMARY SCHOOLS — 
THEIR LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTH. THE DIVORCE OF THE 
PRIMARY SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY PARTIES 

The Act of 1818 was typical of a laissez-faire policy. The 
state assumed a minimum of local control, merely paying over 
on demand the quotas due the counties. No state regulations 
were provided regarding schoolhouses, teachers, or pupils, nor 
was there any definite provision for a strict auditing of ac- 
counts. 1 No form of supervision was mentioned nor was the 
teacher's qualification measured by even so much as provision 
for periodic examination of state pupils. The law depended 
for efficiency on the disinterested service of public-spirited 
commissioners whose ideas must necessarily be bound by 
customary practices. Unlike the New England school com- 
mitteemen these commissioners were wholly unpracticed in 
matters of this kind except as dispensers of charity funds. 

The law's great simplicity and ease of execution was given 
as its chief virtue. The system would require no time of any- 
body. After its inauguration the school commissioners would 
need to meet only once a year, in October, to audit the teachers' 
bills and treasurers' school accounts and make up the report to 
the president and directors of the Literary Fund. As such 
trustees could serve their districts a number of years, it was 
argued, they would soon know the number of children entitled 
to state aid. "The rest of his business will be chiefly trans- 
acted by the people of the district themselves . . . whenever 
any particular neighborhood wishes to make a school, as it is 
termed, and a teacher offers in whom they can confide, their 
first effort is by carrying around a subscription paper to 
ascertain the number of scholars that will be subscribed by 
those who are able to pay." 2 Then the people might present 

1 Judge Spencer Roane of Essex County in a letter to the House, April 16, 1820, 
writes: "It is evident from inspecting the Act of 1818 that many law-suits and 
controversies may arise out of it." 

2 Evingelical and Literary Magazine, "School Commissioner," VIII, 368-70. 

76 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 77 

this list and petition the local school commissioner to sup- 
plement the deficit by adding the names of as many poor 
children as the quota permitted. Four cents a day was al- 
lowed for each such child, but the bounty did not extend to 
the academies or secondary schools. 

At a glance this would seem to be substantially a "rate-bill," 
the scheme of fixing rates employed in the Northern states. 
In practice, this state appropriation was regarded generally 
as a "donation to the poor." Participation in the fund re- 
quired a formal declaration of poverty. The commissioner, 
locally accepted as a dispenser of gifts, was a judicial rather 
than an executive officer. The law obviously placed a premium 
on pauperism by oversimplifying matters. It was to operate 
of itself. A "Friend of Learning," writing in a magazine of 
the period, says: 

"As soon as I saw that the inventors and friends of this system intended 
to make light work of it, that the Primary School System was to be a labor 
saving machine. ... I despaired of its success . . . the education of the 
undisciplined children of the ignorant poor ... to keep them at school, to 
awaken a desire of learning and to arouse to vigorous intellectual exertion, 
requires a patient and skilful attention and demands a care the law has 
adopted no means to secure." 3 

This writer pleads that, with a large class of society having 
no desire for "literary" education, indifferent or even hostile 
to the attempts to send them to school under any such prin- 
ciple of the old order, sympathetic leadership of the people 
and intelligent superintendence of teachers and methods 
pursued should be provided by the state. 

With all its shortcomings the Primary School System was 
inaugurated. If later it was "laughed at on the floor of the 
General Assembly," it was at first taken seriously. Joseph 
C. Cabell, though he later took advantage of its weakness and 
temporary unpopularity to further the interest of the uni- 
versity party, was, perhaps, the first to help interpret the law 
and safeguard its application, at least to give it a fair trial in 
practice. On the passage of the bill he immediately offered 
his services as clerk to the Nelson County commissioners, and, 
in a series of board meetings in 18 18-19, placed the system in 
that county on as firm a basis as the law allowed. Notably, 
a definition of "poor child" was formulated as "an unmarried 

3 Ibid., VIII, 543 etseq. 



78 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

person from seven to twenty-one whose parents by reason [of 
a lack] of property, labor or skill are not able to defray the 
expense of his education." 4 Mr. Ritchie, of the Enquirer, in 
printing the Nelson County report, calls it "a model of accurate 
accounting." No doubt these timely forms and accounts did 
much to bring order and interest out of chaos and indifference. 

Editor Ritchie, in the same article, headed " Primary 
Schools," draws attention to the grave necessity of safeguard- 
ing the disbursement of "our charitable funds," citing the efforts 
of the English Parliament the previous year to correct the 
abuses in the administration of their charity laws. Not desirous 
of accusing the new commissioners of fraud, he did wish the 
" private gifts [for the education of the poor] might be in- 
vestigated. ... It was the idea of waste that induced us to 
wish that the experiment of Primary Schools could at first be 
made upon a small scale." 5 

Governor James P. Preston comments on the new law and 
the condition of education in the state with much hope. On 
December 8, 1818, he states that "some reports have been 
received from limited experiments of school commissioners. 
They are encouraging and should inspire unanimity and pro- 
duce a liberal policy. . . . An unusual desire among citizens 
generally for the attainment of knowledge is now manifesting 
itself. The state of Virginia may soon acquire a distinguished 
reputation for learning ... if encouraged and cherished 
... by the government." 6 

The Report of the Literary Fund itself, December 22, 1818, 
states that the previous legislature had laid the foundation of 
two of the essential parts of public instruction and that the 
fund would in future be large enough to help the primary and 
intermediate schools. Norfolk Borough, Albemarle, North- 
umberland, and Hanover Counties are reported as having 
received and applied their quota: "Not enough money to 

4 Richmond Enquirer, June 22, 1818. 

5 Ibid., April 27, 1818. In the earlier article (Feb. 28, 1818) Mr. Ritchie says: 
"The most important Act of the whole session is the School Bill, a measure which 
takes $45,000 out of the $70,000 of the Literary Fund for an experiment on the mode 
of educating the children of the Poor. We think the experiment begins on too large 
a scale and puts too much of this consecrated fund to the hazard of being wasted. 
We are afraid two or three years will verify this prediction. $15,000 to the Uni- 
versity we hail with delight ... it will benefit the poor as well as the rich for many 
will go there who would go abroad or North." 

6 House Journal, Dec. 8, 1818. 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 79 

reach all, but thousands will be benefited by the Fund who 
would grope out their lives in darkness." The report begs 
for better governance of lotteries as a possible means of 
revenue. 

On December 6, 1819, Governor Preston urged that the Lit- 
erary Fund be put in the hands of those who could give it 
more than secondary attention. He was apparently not con- 
scious of the limitations of the local commissioners as super- 
visors of teaching: he had reference entirely to the business 
management, — the necessity of a scheme for raising additional 
school revenue without state appropriation or local taxation! 
In reference to the Act of 18 18, the Governor said: 

"Measures have been wisely commenced by means of the fund for en- 
ticing the whole mass of our community in the rudiments of learning, 
enabling all who choose to acquire a complete education, etc. . . . But it 
will depend upon the future legislature to mature and complete the under- 
taking." 

A resolution abolishing the Boards of School Commissioners 
and placing the funds for primary schools under the direction 
of the overseers of the poor, and, it might be added, "permit- 
ting females as well as males to participate in the benefit of 
that Fund," was defeated in the House of Delegates on Decem- 
ber 29, 1819. 7 

A strong repugnance against the new act arose among the 
poorer classes, while the great middle class was practically ex- 
cluded from participation in the appropriation. There were 
many parents just able to feed and clothe their children, but 
unable to send them to the private schools of the neighborhood 
or to pay their board in a neighboring community when there 
were no schools at home. Not coming under the Act these 
families were deprived of state aid. Governor Thomas N. 
Randolph, in his message to the General Assembly in 1820, 
comments on the exclusion of this class: 

"The annuity granted is greatly insufficient for the general establish- 
ment of schools to which parents in slender circumstances might have the 
opportunity of sending their children with the certainty of their returning 
at night. There are many parents who are unable to pay for their children's 
education — these should be extended the privilege." 8 

Those who were not of necessity "poor" had voluntarily to 
place themselves in that social category if they would profit 

7 Ibid., S3. 8 IMd., 1820, 7. 



80 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

by the state provision. Governor Randolph, depicting the 
difficulties of the uncompensated school commissioners in ad- 
ministrating the new system, emphasizes the great cause for 
popular reaction against it: 

" To select fit objects of that charity as it is now dispensed an in- 
quiry must necessarily be instituted which has not infrequently proved 
highly offensive to small cultivators who feel a just pride of independence 
for the certainty of being able to furnish abundant food and raiment al- 
though wholly unable to provide for the education of their children. Many 
of them feel unwilling to have their names placed in the list of paupers 
even for that important advantage. The task of the commissioners is 
rendered disagreeable by that circumstance as well as by the loss of time 
and fatigue incurred in the discharge of their duties. [The Governor 
sees that the gratuitous contribution of time and industry required for the 
application of the funds according to the plan proposed is far out of pro- 
portion to any benefits which can be conferred by the small sums allotted:] 
Nevertheless it is hoped that a bounty so generously provided will not 
be hastily withdrawn. Perhaps, a more simple plan might be devised 
which . . . would not require so much gratuitous labor which is not likely 
to be long cheerfully bestowed." 9 

Governor Randolph's recommendation that the middle class 
should be allowed to share in the fund is considered by the 
House Committee on Schools and Colleges, which in returning 
a report, says: 

"To apply the funds of the State for the education of poor children ex- 
clusively, is to tax the industry and virtue of the State that the offspring of 
misfortune or vice may be accomplished and cultivated while the children 
of those who contributed the funds are left uninstructed and unimproved." 

With this preamble the House committee recommends that the 
fund be thrown open to all, even if fewer poor are educated, 
offering the following resolutions: First, that it is inexpedient 
to suspend the annual appropriation of $45,000 for the pur- 
poses of education as advised by the Governor. [The Gov- 
ernor advocated the suspension of the appropriation until a 
sum had accumulated sufficiently large to establish a system 
of common schools for all without the necessity of appeal for 
local taxation.] 

Second, that it is inexpedient to apply the said appropria- 
tion to the exclusive education of poor children of the re- 
spective counties of the commonwealth. 

Third, that the said appropriation should be applied to 
promote education generally among our youth and to facili- 
tate to all of them its acquisition. 

9 House Journal, 1820, 7. 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 81 

Fourth, that for that purpose it is expedient to form several 
convenient school districts and corporations of the state, and to 
establish schools therein toward the support of which the share 
of the respective counties in the annual appropriation shall 
be applied as the tuition . . . received from the scholars 
attending the same school. 

Fifth, that is is expedient to authorize an assessment to 
supply such sums as the annual appropriation in the respective 
counties and the tuition fees may not suffice to pay. The 
committee, moreover, deems its operation of private con- 
tribution with public bounty indispensable to the success of 
any plan of primary education. 10 

The history of the first decade of the new provisions shows 
that the really great defect in the law, if it was to serve as an 
expansion of the older poor-laws, was the inadequacy of a 
$45,000 appropriation to reach all the poor. In 1828-9 
26,690 persons voluntarily made application for state aid, of 
whom only 12,642 were cared for. The cost of even this 
number must have far exceeded the state quota; for the 
majority of commissioners report the average annual cost per 
child at $7.00 to $9.oo. n The state appropriation was in 
effect reduced by the administration of the fund itself. Crude 
methods of dealing with public money were common in our 
early national life. Quotas were sent into the counties with- 
out statutory means of subjecting the authorities to a strict 
accountability of their stewardship. To encourage judicious 
and economical use of the state fund was as difficult as to check 
misappropriation or incompetence in handling it. Confusion 
of accounts — as the result of the lack of records and common 
bookkeeping — was the cause of controversy when certain 
counties which had failed to draw their quotas during the first 
years of the new system came finally to draw their arrearages. 12 
Some of these litigations extended over a generation. The 
auditors' report for 1828 indicates that $91,102.01 of the 
Literary Fund quotas had not been accounted for in certain 

10 Ibid., 1820, 7. 

11 Quarterly Register , American Education Society, 1831, III, 284. A number 
of the counties between 1818 and 1822 either could not or would not draw their 
quotas, for in 1821 there was $47,001.47 in arrears. 

12 Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 25, 1821; — arrears 1818, $11,331.89; — 1819, 
$13,317.00; — 1820, $14,269.41. Chap. 12, Acts of Assembly, 1828. 



82 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

counties. It became necessary to pass an act instructing the 
Literary Fund Board to withhold further payment to these 
counties and to have the commonwealth attorneys take steps 
to recover these balances. 13 

Attempts to give the new law some semblance of a school 
system, at least as far as the public funds were concerned, were 
made in 1823. The expenditure of the Literary Fund was 
regulated by placing greater responsibility upon and power in 
the Second Auditor as disbursing officer of the state school 
money. The county commissioners were required to report 
annually through the Second Auditor to the General Assembly. 
At each session thereafter, Mr. Brown submitted a consoli- 
dated statement of disbursements and expenditures of the 
fund and a report on the progress of education in each county 
with such suggestions as the commissioners volunteered and 
he deemed desirable. These reports, printed in the House 
Journal of the Virginia Assembly, are remarkable educational 
documents. Lacking the perfunctoriness one frequently finds 
in state reports, they contain voluminous data on all phases of 
school progress effected in other states and countries. There 
are notes on educational gatherings within and outside the 
state; plans for country schoolhouses, accounts of experi- 
ments in teaching according to modern methods, suggestions 
for teacher-training and practice teaching, etc. In fact, Mr. 
Brown's investigations constitute a most comprehensive source 
of material for a study of this period. 

Withal, it seems the Literary Fund schools gradually adapted 
themselves to the varied demands of this many-sided com- 
monwealth as far as the quota would go and the nature of the 
law itself permitted. In 1823, Governor James Pleasants 
sounds an optimistic note. " These are just grounds," he 
says, "for believing that the money appropriated for the edu- 
cation of indigent children in the different counties is annually 
becoming more usually employed. ... It is a subject of 
much gratification to reflect that the rudiments of learning, 
at least as far as reading, writing, and the elementary branches 
of arithmetic, are dispensed to a great number who otherwise 

13 A House committee on Dec. 16, 1828, which had examined the auditor's ac- 
count of the Literary Fund and reported, "It is strictly kept and accurately ac- 
counted for," placed the source of waste on the counties and precipitated this act. 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 83 

would receive no education at all." He estimates the number 
of children of primary and grammar school age in the state at 
less than forty thousand, 14 only half of which, according to 
Brown, were "poor" children. Returns from 74 counties, as 
given by Governor Pleasants, indicate that in 1822, 6,105 or 
about one-third of the poor children were being cared for at an 
annual expense for tuition, books, etc., of $7.03 per child. As 
an early writer in the American Quarterly Register said: "It 
appears that although the plan has been attended with very 
differing degrees of success . . . according to the personal 
character of the school commissioners whose services are 
gratuitous there has been a steady and continued improve- 
ment throughout the state in the execution of the law." 15 

The reports of the commissioners to Brown, especially those 
of 1823, may be drawn upon for evidence of the sentiment of 
the state at large toward free schools. Certainly the difficulties 
met by the school commissioners now five years in office ap- 
pear to be more than those resulting from mere class prejudices 
and the defects inherent in a badly drawn law. They are 
mainly economic and geographic in origin as the commis- 
sioners report them: (1) The county quotas are too small to 
care adequately for all the children; (2) parents are reluctant 
to spare their children's labor at home; (3) children lack 
"decent clothes" and food; (4) children do not learn a trade 
in the primary schools and the apprenticeship law is 
discouraged. In mountainous Franklin, Grayson, Mason, 
Nicholas, Allegheny, and Wythe counties, difficulty is found 
in locating convenient places for schools. Mason County 
suggests that it be allowed to support poor children in "board 
and bedding." This, they say, would enable the commis- 
sioners to maintain a "few permanent schools in conjunction 
with the inhabitants of certain neighborhoods who are disposed 
but unable to support schools without foreign aid." In 
Monongalia County, it is said, teachers get discouraged and 
move away and schools disappear with them before the end 
of the year. Nansemond, Gloucester, Harrison, Hardy re- 
port the system a success. Henrico advocates "the division 

14 House Journal, Governor's Message, 1823. 

15 " An ex-Professor," University of Virginia, Quarterly Register, American 
Education Society, 1833, V, 322. 



8 4 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

of the county into wards, erection of permanent schoolhouses " 
and " suitable endowments for each district." Isle of Wight 
County " sends the poor to the same schools where the others 
go and they make as good progress. . . . The greatest dif- 
ficulty is that parents cannot supply clothes and shoes." It 
suggests that the state furnish these from their quota. In 
this the Louisa and Lunenburg commissioners join. Ac- 
comac "can see no reason to change in any degree a system 
so laudable and beneficial." To Augusta "there are no real 
difficulties existing in this county to the success of the system 
except such as grow out of the system itself." To Campbell 
"nothing is wanting in the system to bring it to completion 
but vigilance in the school commissioners:' The first two 
quotas could not be spent in Orange: "The high-minded 
Virginian, although poor, revolted at the idea of his children 
being taught in a charity school." Fairfax "cannot induce 
parents to send children to school so cannot spend the quota." 
Practically all the counties, however, report that prejudice 
and false pride are fast disappearing. There is unanimity, 
too, in the need of food and clothing for many children, and the 
great need of the parents for their children's assistance on the 
farm is given as a common difficulty. 

As has been said in another connection, the Act of 1818 did 
not repeal the laws regarding the education of apprentices. 
It was supposed to supplement them. But there is evidence 
of a tendency of masters to take fewer apprentices because of 
the expense of tuition in the new schools and difficulties aris- 
ing from their establishment. Chesterfield County points out: 

"The law concerning masters and apprentices whereby children bound 
out by the overseers of the poor are to be educated as the law prescribes, 
Li- e at the master s expense] operates to the injury of this class of children 
by deterring many persons from taking apprentices because of the expense 
Of educating them. Thus they are deprived of an education; and are not 
equipped with a trade or profession which will lead to competency or to 
habits that will procure respect. . . . Would it not be well to extend the 
benefit ... to those bound by the overseers of the poor?" 16 

Williamsburg, the old colonial capital, gives the following 
philosophy: 

"Nothing is so much to be dreaded as a system of poor laws which not 
only offer a bounty to pauperism, but, in truth, provide a number of 
16 House Journal, 1824, Auditor's Report for 1823. 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 85 

expensive officers. . . . The overseer of the poor ought to control the educa- 
tion of the poor entirely; and a sufficient local tax to educate and otherwise 
maintain them should be raised for the whole purpose." That is, one set 
of officers should take care of the whole problem of poor children. 
(1) Parents could be so provided for as to be able to give their children 
while being educated. (2) Education might be withdrawn if parents did 
not bind our children for a trade: "For every system of education should 
be connected with labor, {as"] habits of indolence are not overcome altogether by 
the learning of schools. Humanity has to deplore the glaring and frequent 
vices of the learned. Employment, constant, regular, and useful united 
with proper instruction may and will enable the poor to supply their wants, 
know their rights and duties and maintain and discharge them." 17 

This latter statement is worthy of comment. In the Wil- 
liamsburg commissioner's warning against the separation of 
" doing" and " knowing" or of " training" and " instruction" 
we have the conservative's philosophy for no "change in 
principle of education." In the colonial system, as we know, 
the state left education to the homes of independent means, 
but in the case of the apprenticed "poor" required that knowl- 
edge of a trade, good moral habits, and the power to read and 
write must be given by the master. After the apprenticeship 
system broke down, however, this union of training and in- 
struction was lost to public education generally and the dreaded 
danger seen by our forebears in a "change in principle" was 
partially realized. Nowhere is the error so evident as in the 
education offered the negro in the public elementary schools just 
after the Civil War. Here much verbal instruction but little 
definite training was given. The negro received little assistance 
in forming sound mental and moral habits, no training, in fact, 
in making either a living or a life. Much of the solution of the 
so-called negro problem, it now seems, lies in the operation of 
the idea that education must unite these two aspects neces- 
sary to all real learning, if real culture is to be achieved. 

Certainly, it cannot be claimed for the School Act of 1818, 
that it answered the needs of republican government. Had 
it done so it would have placed Virginia far ahead of all other 
American states. It created no "system," for the school 
commissioners provided were little more than disbursing of- 
ficers of the quotas. In many respects it became a serious 
obstacle to future progressive school legislation. To be sure, 
the creation of an educational poor fund out of the Literary 

17 House Journal, 1824, Auditor's Report. 



86 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Fund was a natural first step in the expansion of public con- 
science. But unhappily it gave current class distinctions 
such depth of root that long years after the Civil War parents 
tended to avoid common free schools because they were too 
reminiscent of these "poor" schools and it was felt they 
jeopardized the future social standing of their children. Keen 
prejudice, aroused among the middle classes against "free" 
education as thus defined by statute, crystallized in a con- 
ception that might otherwise have died in the progress of 
democracy. The law, however, was a definite beginning of 
the long struggle toward our present scheme. As an English- 
man and early professor of the University of Virginia said, 
after the law had been in operation ten years, "Notwithstand- 
ing its defects it is likely to be continued; and it is probably 
as good as any other that it would be practicable to substitute 
for it." 18 

The deficiencies of the "pauper" system were, of course, 
disappointing to the sage of Monticello. In a letter (1820) to 
Cabell, Jefferson comments on the successful efforts of Governor 
T. DeWitt Clinton for better common school facilities in New 
York State, 19 and thinks it ought to stimulate the Virginia 
legislature "to look to the reputation and safety of their own 
country, to rescue it from the degradation of becoming the 
Barbary of the Union and falling into the ranks of our negroes 
... to that condition it is fast looking. ..." In support of 
his criticism he gives the following figures for 1820 from New 
York: 

6,000 number of elementary schools. 

300,000 " pupils in elementary schools. 

$160,000 pay of teachers " " " 

40 number of established academies. 

2,218 " " pupils in established academies. 

718 " " students in five colleges. 

$730,000 appropriated to colleges. 

A grand total of $2,500,000 for education in New York! 
Without commenting on the statistics of Virginia, he caustically 

18 London Quarterly Journal, July, 1831, also Quarterly Register, American 
Education Society, Vol. V, 322. 

19 Richmond Enquirer, Nov. 28, 1820. 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 87 

observes: "What a pigmy to this has Virginia become with a 
population about equal to New York!" 

Jefferson still advocated the ward system as opposed to the 
county unit. In his plan one hundred counties divided into 
twelve districts each would supply the state adequately with 
1,200 primary schools. Averaging thirty to a school (fifty, it 
will be noted, was the average in New York) the 360,175 school 
children of Virginia (1820) could be well cared for. Every 
community, he observes, could easily build a log schoolhouse 
in common and support its teacher "with contributions of 
pork, beef, and corn in proportion." In many cases they might 
pay tuition, leaving their quota of the Literary Fund for those 
who could pay nothing. "The truth is," he writes, "the want 
of a common education with us is not from our poverty but 
from the lack of an orderly system. . . . More money is now 
paid for the education of a part than would be paid for the 
whole if systematically arranged." 20 

This latter statement was, of course, quite true in part, but 
Jefferson in his admiration for New York schools never stressed 
the means by which that state achieved its "orderly system." 
New York was the one state which had developed a strong 
central administration of schools. In Virginia it was, in fact, 
a question of educating the people to the value of "literary" 
education and to the power of cooperation, as well as a question 
of an efficient state administration of funds and a satisfactory 
method of attaining them without resorting to too great direct 
tax. Moreover, effecting an orderly system at this time raised 
the question of which should first receive the bounty of a 
limited fund, the University or the common schools. This 
question, it may be interpolated, has been a perennial one for 
popular oratory in the Virginia legislature ever since. 21 

There is no doubt that Jefferson was the great apostle of 
popular education as he was democracy's greatest exponent. 
All the great political leaders, Barbour, Cabell, Campbell, 
Garnett, McDowell, Mercer, Madison, Nichols, Ruffner, etc., 
who wrought earnestly for free schools were debtors to his phi- 
losophy if not to his programs. Jefferson, however, not only 

20 Randolph, op. cit., 185-86. 

21 See recent debates on question of establishing coordinate women's college 
at the University of Virginia, Feb. i, 1916, Richmond Times-Dispatch. 



88 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

defeated a practical plan of common school administration by 
his decentralization policy, but, in centering his energies on the 
establishment of the University of Virginia, he made political 
capital of the unpopularity of the Literary Fund schools to 
assure its success. 22 It is true that after the university project 
was well under way, Jefferson earnestly says he would rather 
abandon the University than the primaries if he had to give 
up either. 23 Certainly he had labored nearly a half-century to 
force the people to assume the duty of elementary education. 
Yet as a matter of practical politics, Cabell writes in 1822 and 
Jefferson agrees, that he must use the unpopularity of the ex- 
isting primary school laws to promote legislation, and later, that 
he had allied himself with the party demanding popular schools 
and subsidized academies in order to assuage the growing un- 
popularity of the university movement. 24 At still another 
time, Cabell thinks it prudent to be " neutral toward the 
academies and primary schools" as the funds are limited and 
he fears a competitor for the Literary Fund. 25 Again, in 1823, 
Cabell writes: 

"The primary schools are in a state of discredit ... if we amend the 
system at this time, and give it credit and honor, this ally will become our 
worst enemy, the popular branch would swallow up all the funds." 26 

He thinks they should act in good faith to the primary schools 
merely by 

"Not attempting to take their present state income. . . . The inherent 
defect of the system will require great alteration. But for us to move in it, 
I think the time has not arrived." 27 

In reply, Jefferson says he is converted to the opinion that: 

"We should let the primary schools be for the present and avail ourselves 
of their temporary discredit, and of the breeze in our favor until the Uni- 
versity is entirely secure . . . and then come forward heartily as patrons 
of the primaries, on some plan which will allow us a fairer share of the 
common fund. ... I have written Mr. Rives to retract the opinion I had 
expressed to him in favor of immediately taking up the subject of remodeling 
those schools." 28 

22 Randolph, 109, 120. Cabell protests vigorously these accusations against 
Jefferson. ™ Ibid., 267. 24 Ibid., 185. 

25 Ibid., 268. So keen was the contest that even the several denominational 
colleges, it seems, annulled the claims of higher education on the fund in fighting 
each other. ™ Ibid., 269. 27 Ibid., 268. 28 Ibid., 271. 



Operation of Literary Fund Schools 89 

The result is a divorce of the primary school from the college 
and University party; henceforth Cabell, Jefferson, etc., are, as 
the former expresses it, a band of steadfast patriots devoted to 
the "holy cause of the University," till its success be assured 
beyond any possibility of failure. Then the second and third 
steps, colleges and academies and primary schools, 29 may be 
effected on rounding out the general plan of popular education 
that had already been before the Virginia people nearly fifty 
years. But Jefferson saw before his death only the consumma- 
tion of the University of Virginia. 

29 Ibid., 271. 



CHAPTER VII 

ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS OF THE LITERARY FUND 
SCHOOLS. THE FAILURE OF THE DISTRICT FREE SCHOOL 
ACT OF 1829. SECTIONALISM IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION OF 1829-30 

A doubtful success of the free school party, after the 
reverses of 1818, was the District Free School Act of 1829. 
This act gave the counties optional authority to use a portion 
of their Literary Fund quota, whenever supplemented by a 
specified local subscription, to erect permanent schoolhouses 
for common use. It was a permissive statute, avoiding the 
issue of compulsory taxation for state school purposes. 

The Act of 181 8 made primary education a gift to the des- 
titute, to those willing to accept the brand of pauperism in a 
social system based on wealth and caste. The state univer- 
sity, hardly begun, was already looked upon as an institution 
for the privileged classes. The intermediate schools, necessary 
to bridge the gap between the primary schools and the univer- 
sity, had not been subsidized. The great body of small 
tax-payers, "the bone and sinew of the state," as one florid 
governor put it, were still struggling with the problem of 
providing education for their children. In the absence of an 
endowed academy or classical school in the neighborhood, 
there were just two ways to reach the university: One must 
either employ a family tutor or cooperate with several 
families in employing one in common. In the early days of 
the state a neighborhood school was organized in this way, 
with nothing more permanent than the teacher's baggage. 
Owing to sparse population or lack of neighborhood coop- 
eration, the more ambitious farmers, in order to maintain 
a school at all, were frequently compelled to subscribe several 
times over the usual tuition fees. Many were compelled, 

90 



The District Free School Act, 182Q 91 

in addition, to board their children in homes near the school. 
These difficulties placed elementary education beyond the 
reach of large numbers of the children of the state. Before 
it could be made accessible, indifferent and unwilling citizens 
must be aroused and educated to the necessity of public 
education and shown the way to pay for it without too great 
sacrifice. This way must lie ultimately in taxation, which 
could only be popularized by reducing, through state subsidy, 
the cost of private education in all grades of schools till larger 
numbers of small freeholders should patronize them and 
finally come to accept public taxation, supplemented by state 
moneys, as more economical than the indirect tax of the fee 
system or subscription. 

Meanwhile, there was general dissatisfaction with the state 
policy. Enough money, it was commonly objected, had 
been expended to have achieved something more than an 
ornamental top. and a very insecure foundation of a state 
school system. For this condition of affairs the leaders of 
school parties were largely responsible. For, as it has been 
pointed out several times, while the progressive leaders were 
fumbling over the details of educational administration, — 
Jefferson endeavoring to create a state university and force 
an indifferent people to initiate their own local schools, and 
Mercer, on the experience of Connecticut and Massachu- 
setts, trying to entice the people into taxation by liberal 
state subsidy — customary thinking had prevailed in the 
mere extension of the colonial provision for the education of 
the poor, and the almost complete neglect of the middle or 
higher elementary schools. 

Friends of the middle schools waged a bitter fight for 
recognition and a participation in state funds. Thomas 
Ritchie had consistently advocated subsidizing the middle 
schools as his "cause" {vide p. 69) and through the Enquirer 
was, no doubt, the most powerful influence in securing the 
Acts of 182 1 and 1834, which permitted the secondary schools 
to participate in the state fund when its income should exceed 
$60,000, the amount already voted the primary schools and 
the state university. The Evangelical and Literary Magazine,, 
a Presbyterian church paper, was another strong agency of 
reform. "Philodemus," presumably its editor, the Reverend 



92 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Dr. John Holt Rice, in seven earnest open letters 1 to the 
president and directors of the Literary Fund, stresses the fact 
that a misdirected energy and bad policy had dissipated the 
dream of popular education in Virginia. In ten years one 
million dollars had been spent on primary schools and the 
University, — an incomplete system. Over one half million 
dollars had been already spent on the new University alone. 
Not counting the average cost of $600 to each individual 
student, the state paid, even when all the dormitories were 
filled, more than $150 a year per student. "Philodemus" is 
by no means an enemy of the University, but he says, "Should 
that institution turn out to be one for the benefit of the few, 
my friendship will be changed into something more than 
indifference." 2 

• The people of the West regarded the University as a main 
obstacle to the establishment of common schools and state 
appropriation for their support. Their delegates had opposed 
the University in the legislatures of 181 5-1 8, as J. C. Cabell 
himself indicates. Judge E. S. Duncan, in 1842 3 states that 
the West, fighting then for a sound primary school system, 
had feared that the University would be too aristocratic and 
would absorb all the revenue of the Literary Fund. "Only 
the powerful influence of Jefferson himself," he said, "could 
convince them that the university party was able to begin at 
both ends at once." The result had been a "big university 
and insufficient primary schools." Alleged failure to gain 
their share in the Literary Fund, to obtain a redistribution 
of representatives, in the General Assembly, and alleged 
discrimination against them in the matter of internal im- 
provements had long been the cause of dissatisfaction with 

1 Evangelical and Literary Magazine, "Philodemus," IX, 83-6, 133-7, J 96- 
201, 201-4, 205-210, 315-8, 350-4. 

2 Ibid, IX, 199. This gentleman makes an interesting note on the establish- 
ment of the University: "I do believe they honestly aimed at the general good. 
But, being without experience and keeping their eyes too much fixed on the 
splendid literary establishments of Great Britain, they have formed such an uni- 
versity as we see. But the great literary establishments of England are in their 
very foundations aristocratic. It is no wonder, then, that we have an institution 
not at all adapted to the common run of planters and farmers." Certainly in 
Mr. Jefferson's protest against the English university course of study, his antag- 
onism to Latin, his emphasis upon science, etc., the founder of the University 
of Virginia himself is not fairly represented. 

3 House Journal, 1841-2, Document No. 7, p. 8. Cf. Mercer's bill and argu- 
ment, 1817, p. 67. 



The District Free School Act, 182Q 93 

the western counties. As the tide of Jacksonian democracy 
rose, this section gained the power and social self-conscious- 
ness to fight for its own. Virginia was a house divided against 
itself from this time till the Civil War, a unity only in the 
loosest political sense. The slight thread that held the two 
sections together was dangerously strained in the heated 
constitutional convention of 1 829-30. 4 

Before proceeding to the Act of 1829, a few facts on the 
rapid internal changes that had taken place in the state since 
the United States census of 1790 will help lay bare the 
economic basis for sectionalism. During the forty years, 
1 790-1829, the population west of the Blue Ridge had in- 
creased from 127,594 to 319,516 whites. The East had in- 
creased but 48,222 in the same time, making its total white 
population 362,745.* But in the West there were only 35,887 
freeholders to the East's 56,846; while representation in the 
Assembly remained for the western counties what it had been 
in 1790. In 1829 there were 440,000 slaves in the state. 
Of these only 50,000 were west of the Blue Ridge. 6 Slaves 
comprised 2/3 per cent of the western white population, 17 
per cent of the Valley population, where large slave holdings 
were rare; while, in the East, slaves exceeded the white popu- 
lation by 40,00c 7 On the other hand, eastern Virginia had, 
in 181 5, paid $350 in taxes for every dollar paid by the West, 
in 1829, twenty counties of the East still paid three fourths 
of the state taxes, the entire forty counties of the West paying 
the remainder. 8 There is little wonder that a delegate 'from 
Norfolk, attempted to substantiate his 1 claim that taxation 
and representation spring from different foundations and flow 
into different and distant oceans. 9 Again, Mr. Cooke, of 
Norfolk, wished it known that he had his "theories of Gov- 
ernment as well as the wild democrats of the middle and west- 
ern Virginia" and was not to be sacrificed on theirs. 10 

4 Vide Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, 17 76-1861, the best text on the general 
history of Virginia during this period. 

5 Proceedings, Constitutional Convention, 1829-30, 87. 

6 Ibid., 111-12. By estimate of Ex-Governor Barbour of Orange County. 

7 Ibid., 207. Virginia contained one fourth of all the slaves in the Union, more 
than were in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee combined, and more 
than four times the number of any one of them. Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 26, 
1832. Report of address of Wm. H. Brodnax of Dinwiddie County to the General 
Assembly. 8 Ibid., 1829, 112. 9 Ibid., 113. 10 Ibid., 337. 



94 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Property was on the defensive. Intrenched in the first 
state constitution, 11 scoring a point in the Act of 1818, it was 
reluctant to lose an advantage in the face of a growing anti- 
slavery propaganda. The early American idea was that 
universal suffrage is a right to be earned before it is to be 
enjoyed. The more one has, the more power one should 
exercise; for property makes for permanence and is the only 
safe basis for suffrage. 12 In the Constitutional Convention 
of 1829-30 John Randolph gave vent to this defense of wealth 
in a vehement protest against the whole tendency to allow 
the propertyless and incompetent to share unearned the bene- 
fits of property. 

"Why, sir, the richest man of Virginia, be that man who he may, would 
make a good bargain to make you a present of his estate, provided you give 
him bond upon that estate, to allow him to tax it as he pleases, and to 
spend the money as he pleases. It is of the very essence of property that 
none shall tax it but the owner himself, or one who has a common feeling 
and interest with him. It does not require a plain planter to tell an as- 
sembly like this, more than half of whose members are gentlemen of the 
law, that no man may set his foot on your land without your permission, 
but as a trespasser; and that he renders himself liable to an action for 
damages. This is of the very essence of property. 'But,' he says, 'thank 
you for nothing.' 'With all my heart.' 'I do not mean to set my foot 
on your land, but not owning one foot of land myself, I will stand here in 
the highway, which is as free to me as it is to you, and I will tax your land 
not to your heart's content but to ww.'" 13 

11 Vide Beard, Economic Interpretations of the Constitution of the United 
States. 

12 A number of working men meeting at Harmony Hall, New York, passed 
a resolution, according to the Courier and Free Enquirer, of that city, May 20, 
1830, demanding equal educational opportunity and equal property rights for 
themselves and their children. More than a dozen newspapers in the North 
indorsed this " Skidmore-Robert Owen socialism." To certain conservative 
Southerners this movement was an attack on wealth and government by the 
ignorant and thriftless. A gentleman in the Southern Review — a magazine 
published in Charleston, S.C., and widely circulated in Virginia — published 
his protest in an article "Agrarianism and Education." Aristocracy and wealth 
must be preserved as necessary to scientific and literary advancement, — he 
did not mark the lack of it in the Southern states, — while universal suffrage, 
free clothes, free instruction and, finally, free land at maturity, as advocated by 
this convention, would rob the poor of any incentive to rise and kill science and 
art. Civil society itself would be destroyed — Southern Review, 1830, VIII, 30. 

13 Proceedings, Constitutional Convention, Nov. n, 1829; Southern Review, 
VIII, 30. This explains why in 1829 only 45,000 who held property were voters 
out of more than 140,000 free, white male Virginians over twenty-one years old. 
As Governor William Branch Giles, a political ally of Jefferson, significantly 
states before this very convention: "Extend the right of suffrage to every man, 
dependent as well as independent, and you immediately open the flood gates of cor- 
ruption . . . and undermine the public and private virtue of your people." Those 
familiar with the evolution of manhood suffrage in other states, New York in par- 
ticular, know that this was not an argument peculiar to Virginia at this period. 



The District Free School Act, 182Q 95 

On the floor of this convention Charles Fenton Mercer, of 
Loudoun, pauses, in a heated debate on representation and 
taxation, to say: 

"The education of the people is also an object of dread, and the bill of 
181 7, 14 which passed the House of Delegates by a very large majority 
notwithstanding its present unequal basis of representation, has been the 
topic of special denunciation and complaint. We are told we wish to acquire 
the power of educating the poor man's child at the expense of the rich. I 
confess I am ashamed to hear such suggestions at this day and in the 
capitol of Virginia. Although I preceive no connection between them 
and the purpose of this deliberation [representation], they spring from a 
source so respectable 15 . . . they merit my notice. . . . Such a cause ought not 
to suffer for want of an advocate. . . . Since 1819 we have applied $45,000 
a year to the education of the poor and 10,000 children are imperfectly 
taught for about six months in the year by its application. Except in 
Brook County, where about five dollars a year suffices for the education 
of poor children, it takes about eight dollars a head; while in Connecticut 
and Scotland the cost is one fourth of that. Will the rich anywhere complain 
of a system which, while the children of the poor are instructed, enables 
them to educate their own at a cost so reduced? And is the education of 
the people who are everywhere in America the acknowledged guardian 
of their own rights, the source of political power, a subject of mere Eastern 
or Western interest in Virginia? Who are the people of the West? Whence 
did they spring? From the East? Have they forgotten their common 



The great common school champion of the western dele- 
gates in the Constitutional Convention was Alexander Camp- 
bell. As he had led in a democratization of the Christian 
church, founding a sect known as Christians or Disciples of 
Christ, so he spent a great part of his life in democratizing 
elementary education in Virginia. He proposed the only 
resolution made during the convention, to give constitutional 
sanction to public education. "A resolution," he said years 
later, "replete with blessings . . . which was nailed to the 
table by a mere parliamentary maneuver; by those, too, who 
had not courage to vote against it or to formally oppose it." 
He continues: 



"This apathy of the legislators is supported by a more fatal apathy of 
the multitudes of the people . . . since the project of getting them [common 
schools] was first named, this apathy on the part of the great mass of 

14 Vide p. 67; italics mine. 

15 Mr. Green, a delegate from Culpeper County. 

16 Proceedings, Constitutional Convention, 1829-30, 202. 



g6 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

uneducated (not wholly confined to them either) has generally, even after 
a system was got up by law, called for some compulsory measure." 17 

Mr. Campbell, with great feeling, raises the question of 
eastern and western differences as a fundamental cause of 
failure to secure legislation. He says: 

"We want colleges for those who . . . have more [intellectual] appe- 
tite, taste and capacity than the common standard; and we want common 
schools for all. We blame not the aristocracy of the East nor the memory 
of Mr. Jefferson for erecting and liberally endowing one great Eastern 
university ... we only blame them for not granting similar favors to 
the West and good common schools to the whole country. Shall we of 
the West be satisfied that the Legislature of Virginia shall bestow $450,000 
on one Eastern university and put us off with an annual pittance for common 
schools?" 

He epitomizes the educational platform of the West in a 
striking comparison of the two sections: 

"Our brethren of the East have difficulties that lie not in our way; (1) 
two sorts of population of great political disparity ... a misfortune which 
tends to aristocracy. . . . Now common schools and aristocracy are not . . . 
homogeneous. A patrician will not have a plebeian system of schools. 
It would undignify his son to learn out of the same grammar . . . with the 
son of a plebeian. In the West we are too poor . . . political aristocracy 
first and last stands on gold . . . the transition is easy from democracy 
to aristocracy. ... A lucky lottery ticket might convert a flaming demo- 
crat into a spruce . . . little aristocrat. If we were richer it would be so. . . . 
Aristocracy does not thrive in rough and high country like Western Vir- 
ginia; our farms are small . . . this makes the district system possible to us. 

"We do not want poor schools for poor scholars, or gratuitous instruction 
for paupers; we want common schools for common wants and the question 
is: How shall we get them? Poor schools are a failure because the most 
honorable will do without education altogether, rather than admit their 
abject poverty or afterward wear what they consider the opprobrium of 
having been charity scholars." 18 

In turning now to an analysis of the optional District Free 
School Act of 1829, it may be assumed, from the foregoing 
evidence, that no compulsory legislation affecting property 
could easily pass the General Assembly. Both democracy 

17 Mr. Campbell here touches upon the ''fatal apathy" of the commons that 
Jefferson was so hopeful of arousing to local initiation of schools. Let it be said 
again that it was this idea of Jefferson's that permitted no reconciliation between 
his and Mercer's plans for the administration of public education. Mr. Campbell 
later, in 1845, places the blame, not so much on self-interested property as upon 
the widespread indifference among the people themselves who would make up 
the enrollment of the common schools. 

18 Address of Alexander Campbell before the Clarkesburg Educational Con- 
vention, 1841, House Journal, 1841-2, Document 7, 31; vide also Proceedings 
Constitutional Convention, 1829-30. 



The District Free School Act, 182Q 97 

and aristocracy were afraid of centralized power in taxation 
for schools, for fear it might be put into the wrong hands! 
Hence the state adopted a policy of permissive rather than 
compulsory school legislation. Recent legislation in the 
interest of compulsory education for the white child and the 
negro presents an interesting parallelism. The present statute 
leaves the question to county or city option. In fact the 
modern permissive Compulsory Education Act of 1908, 19 
and the early nineteenth-century permissive Act of 1829 
represent the same stages in democratization; the negro 
in contemporary history taking the place of a white class in 
the early Jacksonian period. The question, Can property 
afford to tax itself for the education of a numerous dependent 
group? is still being asked by many intelligent people of the 
state and, as yet, few localities have assumed this tax burden! 
The Act of February 26, 1829, 20 was an attempt to keep 
abreast of the best experience of the other states, particularly 
New York. It was not unlike the dormant aldermanic law 
of 1796, except that it placed the right of decision on the 
voters of the counties instead of the county courts. It per- 
haps more nearly resembled Mercer's proposals in the General 
Education Bill of 181 7. It was an attempt to convert the 
primary schools of 181 8 into a common school system which 
would include the middle class and avoid the declaration of 
poverty. 

The schools under the new act were to be directed by the 
Second Auditor, now designated the " Superintendent of the 
Literary Fund." He was allowed a state stipend of eight 
hundred dollars a year. The success of the system was made 
to depend upon voluntary contributions — neighborhood 
assessments — rather than upon a compulsory county school 
tax. The motive for the assumption of a voluntary tax lay 
in the supplement promised by the state to all local contri- 
butions, and in the reduced cost of tuition made possible by 
the union of the new fund with the Literary Fund quota. 
The chief objects of this bill, it was said during its considera- 
tion, were: (1) to give greater efficiency to the state appro- 

19 Acts of Assembly, 1908, 640. 

20 Acts of General Assembly, 1828-9, Chap. XII, 12. "An Act to Reduce 
into One Act the Several Acts Concerning the Literary Fund." 



98 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

priation of $45,000, to make better provision for schools and 
teachers by affording opportunity for local financial coopera- 
tion, and (2) to remove the odious distinction between the 
rich and the poor. The provisions of the Act, though optional, 
are interesting because they represent a decided effort toward 
state control: 

(1) Each county was to be divided into districts from three 
to seven miles square, at the most convenient point of which 
a school was to be erected. 

(2) Whenever the inhabitants of such a district would 
contribute three fifths of a sum necessary to provide a school- 
house, the school commissioners were authorized to supply 
the remaining two fifths from their annual quota of the 
Literary Fund, provided it did not exceed 10 per cent of their 
county quota, and provided one acre of land, at least, was 
set aside forever for school purposes. 

(3) The county school commissioners were authorized to 
give one hundred dollars out of the Literary Fund quota 
toward the salary of a teacher whenever the community 
would supplement it with a like sum. 

(4) Schools were made free to all alike, to be controlled * 
by three district trustees, two elected by the annual contrib- 
utors and one by the county school commissioners. 

(5) The Second Auditor was given greater administrative 
powers, and the Board of Directors of the Literary Fund 
— now consisting of the Governor, Treasurer and Second 
Auditor — was given general supervision of the state system. 
In a small way this latter may be regarded as a step in the 
differentiation of a special department of education from the 
general officers of the state. In thus designating the Second 
Auditor "Superintendent," Virginia inaugurated her first State 
Superintendent of Schools. 

Unhappily, the District Free Schools plan was so designed 
that its success in operation depended upon a machinery of 
political democracy not yet worked out. It received scant 
support in either the eastern or western, counties. The Super- 
intendent of the Literary Fund expressed the opinion in his 
first report that it was destined to failure because it did not 
compel local taxation on property. Left to the option of the 
counties the law was generally ignored, although it was theo- 



The District Free School Act, 182Q 99 

retically in the power of the electorate to accept it. Some 
counties openly declared a district system unsuited to their 
condition; some gave it a half-hearted trial. Many counties 
were satisfied with the old law, or, at least, took the attitude 
of Cumberland County, which thought "the old law superior 
to the new in sparsely settled sections, of which 19/20 of Vir- 
ginia is made up." 21 

There were three striking exceptions to the general 
apathy — Franklin and Washington Counties, within the 
present area of Virginia, and Monroe, now part of West 
Virginia. Within a year of the enactment of the law Franklin 
County accepted its provisions, dividing itself into thirty-four 
school districts. One district was chosen for experimental 
purposes. A substantial brick schoolhouse was built. The 
salary of the teacher was paid by community subscription, 
supplemented by the district share of the Literary Fund 
quota. The school was open six months to fifty-five children, 
and the commissioner enthusiastically reported to Brown: 
"The expense per child per annum was only one half of the 
previous year; and of the fifty-five educated, forty-eight 
would have been excluded under the old law." Lacking the 
aid of an obligatory tax, the experiment went little further 
than this. Where dependence was placed upon the Literary 
Fund alone, and in many districts it seems this was necessary, 
several insuperable difficulties arose: (1) The quota for the 
district was only about one sixth of the sum necessary to 
equip it; (2) the whole county quota would be consumed 
in aiding the building, at $70, of ten schoolhouses; (3) it 
would require the total county quota for 32/3 years to aid 
each of the thirty-four districts similarly; (4) after every 
district "shall have been provided with schoolhouses the 
annual quota will be only one fourth of the amount necessary 
to grant the aid given in the first district." 22 This effort 
in Franklin, it would seem, achieved little except to show the 
necessity of public taxation. 

Monroe County laid off thirty-one districts, built schools 
in two, fixed school age at eight to sixteen years, elected 

21 House Journal, Report of Second Auditor, Cumberland County, 1830. 

22 Ibid., Franklin County, 1830. 



ioo The Free School Idea in Virginia 

trustees, and organized a substantial system. 23 But here, too, 
success was limited by reliance upon the meager state funds 
for the support of the system. Washington County went 
beyond Franklin and Monroe in contributing time and labor 
for buildings. As Superintendent Brown reports: 

"The first of the District Free Schools have been established in Frank- 
lin, Monroe and Washington, — an experiment of unbounded interest to the 
state and should be attempted wherever the density of population will 
admit of it, but at the same time it is a delusion to suppose that the system 
can ever be upheld solely at the expense of the public treasury. Inhab- 
itants must imitate Washington County and contribute a portion of their 
time, labor, and substance for the purchase of land, schoolhouses with 
furniture, appendages and fuel, and for raising by some effectual means 
of taxation or contribution a permanent provision for their teachers." 24 

"It is evident that to put into operation such a system in the thirty- 
four districts, instruction must stop two or three years till schoolhouses 
are erected, and even then twenty-four of the thirty-four districts will have 
no money for instruction unless: (i) the people of the district furnish their 
own schoolhouse and contribute to the support of the teacher, or, (2) the 
quota be increased fourfold or appropriation made from the public treasury. 
To change from the present to the district system we must have means be- 
yond the Literary Fund from local taxation." 

The Superintendent here draws the attention of the General 
Assembly to the fact that in Massachusetts, New York, and 
Connecticut only the teachers' salaries were paid out of the 
permanent funds. Books were furnished the children by the 
parents; and the schoolhouses, sites, and appendages were 
provided by a tax upon the school district imposed at legal 
meetings of the people. He deplores the lack in his state of 
that local spirit which necessarily conditions the progress of 
any scheme, giving New York's common schools as authority 
for his statement that all permanent school improvement 
must ultimately depend upon the interest taken in local 
school affairs by the people themselves. "The New York 
School fund has reached only $100,000; yet, with little more 
than twenty-one cents a child ($12 to each school) 480,041 
were sent to school for an average period of eight months at 
a total cost per child of $2. 25 Again in 1835 Brown insists: 
"Experience indicates that a district free school system is 
impossible so long as voluntary contributions are depended 

23 Ibid., Monroe County (now West Virginia), 1830. 

u House Journal, reports of these three counties in "extracts" of Commis- 
sioner's Reports, 1830. 

25 Ibid.\ quoted from New York State Superintendent's Report. 



The District Free School Act, 1829 10 1 

upon, and the Literary Fund will never be enough. Taxa- 
tion is indispensable to its existence." 26 And in 1838, he 
repeats: 

"While so extensive an apathy on the subject of education prevails 
... no reliance can be placed in the permanence of free schools established 
under the existing legal regulation, depending chiefly as they do for support 
on voluntary contributions. Taxation must be resorted to." 27 

A majority of those counties which favored a district plan 
considered it impossible to create such a system without 
larger revenue than the people were apt to vote. Charlotte 
advises 

"taxation on all the property of the state, [and would] respectfully suggest 
that if the poor are ever instructed to the extent that the nature of our 
government and the situation of our country require, the rich must in a 
great degree sustain the expense ... for [in return] the poor will defend 
the treasuries of the rich. . . . 

"Levy a tax on all property, which, added to the Literary Fund, would 
be sufficient to educate all children rich and poor for the common avocations 
of life. The rich could then be removed by their parents to higher schools 
to qualify them to fill with advantage the office of government and it is prob- 
able that here they would meet with some competitors who were raised 
in the humble walks of life and who were their companions in the primary 
schools. 'Love thy neighbor as thyself is good for individuals, why not 
for governments? Would it not be a surer way to secure the perpetuity 
of our civil institutions than the inquiry of our legislature: 'Will this or 
that measure be popular with the rich?'" 28 

Moreover, as Mr. Brown said to his commissioners, in a 
circular of information in 1829, when the District Act was 
passed: "In a country like ours, the component parts of 
which are so essentially different from each other ... no 
uniform plan of education can easily be devised to provide 
for the real wants or is likely to accord with the opinions and 
wishes of all." The commissioners' reports in 1830 are 
indeed so many evidences of this fact. They indicate genuine 
difficulties and do not necessarily reflect sectional and political 
differences. In many instances the systems of 1818 and 1829 
are compared. Midland counties, such as Amherst, Gooch- 
land, Montgomery, and the more mountainous districts across 
the Range, as Greenbrier, Morgan and Wood, and Tazewell 
in the southwest, think it inexpedient to attempt the new 

26 Ibid., Special Report of Second Auditor on "Free Schools," 1835. 

27 Ibid., Jan. 1, 1838, 4. 

28 Ibid., Charlotte County, 1830. 



102 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

district system in the thinly settled sections. In an earlier 
report (1824) Nicholas County, in the mountains, cannot 
spend its quota because a common convenient site cannot 
be found. "If the Literary Fund Board would board children 
at some central place, — say, at fifty cents a week, — com- 
mon schools would be made possible." 29 Again, Charlotte 
County, in Piedmont, thinks the district system unsatisfac- 
tory. It cannot build permanent schools " because of the 
changes in neighborhoods. . . . There will be perpetual 
disagreement as to the proper site for the schoolhouse." 
Chesterfield, however, thinks it would greatly reduce the cost 
per pupil. Albemarle thinks that the schools of 1818 should 
"be abolished as defective and the system of 1829 generally 
adopted by amendment, making such law imperative, instead 
of discretionary ." James City County, surrounding Williams- 
burg, deems it "of vastly more importance that the laboring 
classes be taught to labor industriously and skillfully than 
that they should be taught to read and write. These last 
too often tend to idleness and dissipation in the absence of 
regular habits of labor, induced by early training." Kanawha 
County " expresses its pleasure at the operation of the old 
system of primary schools in this country." Cumberland 
and Loudoun, too, are satisfied with it. The former attempts 
to prove the efficacy of the Act of 1818 if properly adminis- 
tered. Berkeley County, now West Virginia, says, "Under 
the new District Free School system, you just build up a plan 
by which the parsimonious and niggardly may educate their 
children at the expense of the liberal and just." 30 Withal, 
the enthusiasm for a district system was not as great as the 
debates in the House seem to indicate and there was more 
open opposition to it in the West than in the East. 

In the effort to define indigence, in answer to Mr. Brown's 
request of those counties operating under the old primary 
system, Berkeley thinks the indigent are "such parents as 
are unable to pay for their children's education"; Cumber- 
land, those parents who (1) have no property and do not 
make enough to support and educate their children, (2) those 

29 House Journal, Nicholas County, 1824. This is quite common in the rural 
high school districts at present, but, of course, the state does not pay the board 
on the basis of this suggestion. 

30 Ibid., Berkeley County, 1830. 



The District Free School Act, 182Q 103 

parents who have property but not enough in the judgment 
of the commissioner "with all labor to support and educate 
their children." Giles considers indigent "all parents not 
worth $150, exclusive of household furniture." In Hardy 
County "indigent children are: (1) those whose parents 
have not enough money to pay tuition without depriving 
themselves of comforts necessary to themselves and families; 
(2) propertyless orphans; (3) apprentices whose masters 
cannot carry out their contracts to educate them." In 
Henrico, children whose parents would "deprive themselves 
if forced to pay" tuition are indigent. To Loudoun, indi- 
gents are: (1) "a man who has a small house and lot but 
his family is large and it is obvious that he cannot pay school 
bills; (2) day laborers without property and with large 
families; (3) children of industrious widows who are not 
paupers, and (4) the pauper class whose parents are often 
lazy and intemperate." 

In these illustrations are included the main definitions 
returned to the Auditor. They indicate quite clearly the 
ever- widening circle of those included as "free" pupils. But, 
as Berkeley County states: "No matter how liberal a con- 
struction of 'indigent' is made, there is always a class excluded 
just above that included." 

To summarize this chapter it may be said that the District 
Free School plan failed for three sufficient reasons: (1) it 
necessitated local initiative and cooperation, the machinery 
of political democracy which had not yet been effected; 31 
(2) it provided no state system of public taxation or school 
administration; (3) to such a sparsely settled country the 
scheme was ill adapted. It was frequently impossible to 
find a center of population sufficiently dense to support a 
school which could be reached by children in time for school 
in the morning. 

The failure of the West to embrace a system which its 
enthusiasm had helped to write into law is evidence that 
that section had not gone far enough ahead of the older 
settlements to offset the political disadvantage of county 

31 At the time the District Act was before the Assembly, advocates of town- 
ship government endeavored to revive Jefferson's gospel and break the autocracy 
of the old county government. 



104 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

government. Transportation, too, was an even greater ob- 
struction to consolidation of schools then than it is now. 
To travel long distances over wretched roads to a permanent 
schoolhouse built in a neighboring community, granting the 
site had been agreed upon, was a prospect to arouse com- 
munity jealousies and to deepen the feeling against taxation 
of one section for the support of another. To put into suc- 
cessful operation the Act of 1829 required a heroic leadership 
which did not appear in any of the counties ! 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE STATUS OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER. HIS 
ORIGIN AND INDIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS A FACTOR IN 
RETARDING THE GROWTH OF STATE PRIMARY FREE 
SCHOOLS. PLANS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING OF 
TEACHERS 

The parish minister and family tutor embodied colonial 
Virginia's conception of the professional teacher. On them 
the colony depended for the major part of its secondary 
education, and in them, if the authority of Jefferson is to be 
accepted, the Old Dominion was a peer among the colonies. 1 
Of the character of the teacher and the work done in the 
colonial "English" or elementary schools, we are not so 
certain. Hugh Jones tells us in 1724: "In most parishes 
there are schools (little Houses being built on Purpose) where 
are taught English and Writing; but to prevent the sowing 
of the Seeds of Dissention and Faction it is to be wished that 
the Masters or Mistresses should be such as are approved 
or licensed by the Minister and Vestry of the Parish or jus- 
tices of the County, the Clerks of the Parishes being generally 
most proper for this Purpose or (in case of their incapacity 
or refusal) such others as can be secured." 2 "The clerks 
of the Parishes" were undoubtedly a main source of supply 
of elementary school teachers. It was so in England. The 
English scholar, Arthur F. Leach, says in this connection: 
"In places so far apart as Coventry, 1492, and Bristol, 1452 
and 1502, the duty of teaching reading is expressed or implied 

1 Randolph, op. cit., 185. Vide 109. 

2 Jones, Hugh, The Present State of Virginia, London, 1724, 70. In 1686 
Governor Howard issued a general proclamation calling upon all teachers in the 
colony to attend the General Court at Jamestown and present testimonials of 
competency from their parish's foremost citizens. A number of teachers appar- 
ently were not able to comply with this order and the House of Burgesses declared 
their schools vacant and requested the Governor to appoint fit persons to examine 
applicants. Hening, II, November 4, 1686. 

105 



106 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

as one of the principal duties of Parish Clerks. . . . Even in 
1 80 1 a writer in the Gentlemen' 's Magazine, complaining of the 
decadence of parish clerks, suggests that they be taken from 
a better class 'so as to make good schoolmasters.'" 3 This 
practice must have been transplanted to Virginia. The 
Crown early offered a bounty of £20 to encourage ministers, 
schoolmasters, and clerks to emigrate to America. 4 In parish 
records, such as that of Bristol, 5 the salary of a parish clerk is 
given as 2000 pounds of tobacco, the minister's, 16,000. In 
case of the minister's death or temporary absence, the clerk 
assumed the duties of a lay reader of the services "if he could 
read tolerably well." In a few parishes the clerk took the 
minister's place for long periods, but in the main he must 
have had more time and necessity to devote to teaching than 
had the minister himself. In the colonists' zeal "for peace 
and good government and for the security of the Doctrine 
and Discipline of the Established Church of England" it is 
reasonable to believe that the elementary teacher was selected 
with some care as to character, if K not as to scholarship. 
Records may some day acquit a majority of the teachers of 
these "little Houses" of being fugitives from justice, or 
"low-bred intemperate adventurers of the Old World." There 
were, no doubt, many such characters among those who came 
to the colony under indenture, but we are too apt to allow 
an occasional notice or advertisement in the Maryland and 
Virginia gazettes of the "escape from jail of a servant who 
follows the occupation of schoolmaster" to determine for us 
the status of the colonial elementary teacher. 

There is no doubt whatever that the family tutor was care- 
fully selected with respect to scholarship, character, and the 
niceties of English culture. Fithian, 6 in a diary of his services 
as tutor to the family of Councilor Robert Carter, informs us 
that Mr. Carter preferred a tutor trained on the Continent 
because his pronunciation of English ("as most of his children 

3 Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education, II, 3. Arthur F. Leach, Church Schools 
and other contributions to the history of elementary education in England. 

4 Fothergill, Gerald, A List of Emigrant Ministers and Schoolmasters to 
America, 1 790-181 1. 

5 Chamberlayne, Churchill G., Bristol Parish Vestry Book, n, 12, 19, 29, 30, 39, 
et passim. There is, however, no reference to the services of these clerks as school- 
masters. 

6 Fithian, Philip Vickers, Journal and Letters, 1767-74, 147. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 107 

are apt to be taught in this") excelled "the Scotch, native, 
or ordinary English school young gentleman." 

The Revolution did much to destroy Virginia's source of 
public and private teachers. Two thirds of the colonial parish 
ministers failed to return to their charges after the War, and 
many parishes disappeared. The place of the clergyman school- 
master was partially rilled in the secondary schools by a newer 
type of teacher, the Scotch-Irish dominie. He made a notable 
impression upon the new state. Mercer says: "These Euro- 
pean teachers were the best scholars and ablest teachers if not 
always the best men." 7 For the post- Revolution elementary 
teacher in Virginia, we have little guarantee of either his charac- 
ter or qualification. As Professor Paul Monroe has well said, 
Washington Irving's description of Ichabod Crane is no great 
exaggeration of the American common school teacher of a cen- 
tury ago. The supply was limited and the elementary school 
too little appreciated everywhere. "The need for an ade- 
quate supply of teachers extends," says Mercer in his Princeton 
address, "throughout the whole system of American popular 
education." 8 

Virginia suffered, in this respect, more than any of the 
Northern states. With the disintegration of the colonial 
government, its teaching class, its school control, and its 
scheme of licensing and supervision decayed. In spite of 
Jefferson's efforts, no new agency replaced the defunct Church 
as an arm of the state. The state evolved no means of en- 
couraging its native sons to teach. Although Church con- 
trol of elementary education weakened, New England, in 
the transition from colony to commonwealth, did not feel 
the stress of this problem. It was not destitute of a per- 
manent class of native teachers. Furthermore, New England 
was not marked by any such social readjustment as that which 
followed the bitterly contested Separation Acts. These 
swept away the last vestiges of Virginia's traditional teaching 
classes, as they destroyed what influence the Episcopal Church 
retained after the Revolution. Moreover, in New England 
schools had been gradually evolved during a period when the 
population was small and gathered compactly in towns and 
townships. Generations of educated clergy, dominated by 

7 Mercer C. F., op. cit., 69. 8 Ibid., 69. 



108 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

the Calvinistic conception of the relationship of education 
to religion and the state, had year in and year out preached 
the necessity of a general diffusion of knowledge. 9 In her 
constitution of 1789, Massachusetts was able to require, under 
penalty of 20 shillings a day for violation of the ruling, that 
only native Americans be employed in her state schools; and 
these natives were required to obtain a state license. 10 As 
Mercer puts it, " Massachusetts prohibited by law the em- 
ployment of foreign [European] instructors in her schools 
when Virginia had scarcely any others except what she drew 
from the East. . . . Since Virginia has been thrown on her 
own resources and those of our sister states for a supply 
of teachers, classical and domestic education have both 
declined." u 

Virginia's laissez-faire policy, therefore, not only permitted 
a decline in education, but the impression produced on the 
popular mind by the class of teachers imported tended to 
discourage native teachers from entering the elementary 
school field. When the early agitation for common 'schools 
resulted in the Act of 18 18, with its moderate but sudden 
call for teachers, the demand was out of all proportion to the 
supply in the state; and many of those who came from 
without the state for the paltry four cents a day per poor 
child granted by this Act were not calculated to give greater 
respectability to common school teaching. The county 
commissioners early report that the meager sum offered 
"operates to attract a low grade of teacher." Many masters, 
in the more prosperous sections, refused to do the work be- 
cause of the clumsy bookkeeping involved, even for the sake 
of charity. Warwick County reports that it employs teachers 
of "as good morals and qualifications" as they can secure. 
Mathews County insists that the quotas from the Literary 
Fund "must be increased — doubled and trebled. The 
little at hand has no effect to improve the character and com- 
petency of the schools by inducing teachers of ability to seek 
employment. Only the most moderate and partial benefits 
can be expected from the very humble grade of scholarship 

9 Evangelical and Literary Magazine, VIII, 369. 

10 Massachusetts State Constitution, 1789. 

11 Mercer, op. cit., 71. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 109 

of most of the teachers in the common schools; men possess- 
ing scarcely any education themselves, resorting to this 
mode of livelihood frequently from necessity produced by the 
irregularity of their past lives." 12 

Jefferson, who had attempted to provide for the training 
of teachers and other public servants in his proposals of 1778, 
comments, in 1820, perhaps too harshly, on the failure of 
Virginia to meet her own needs: "The mass of education 
in Virginia before the Revolution placed her with the fore- 
most of her sister colonies. Where is her education now? 
The little we have is imported, like beggars, from other states 
or we import their beggars to bestow on us their miserable 
crumbs." 13 

As late as 1838 Dr. George W. Dame, of Lynchburg, in 
writing a biographical sketch of one of the pioneers for 
common schools in the state, says: "The occupation of the 
teacher is in low repute and very few young men of Virginia 
who were qualified would engage in that occupation, hence 
their teachers were generally procured from other states." 14 
The status of the teacher and the true sentiment of the state 
may be found in a correspondent's reasons why poor men 
stay in and good men give up elementary school teaching: 

"Good men [1] deem it disreputable; [2] think it is too laborious; 
[3] or that it pays too little; other men stay in it, because [1] they can 
do nothing else; [2] they out-bid good teachers; [3 ] they have some 
physical misfortune; and, [4] parents have to send their children to some- 
body to get rid of them. ... In the schoolhouse . . . there is often installed 
a man with a heart of stone and hands of iron; too lazy to work, too igno- 
rant to live by his wits in any other way, whose chief recommendation is 
his cheapness and whose chief capacity to instruct is predicated by his 
incapacity for other employment. ... Of the progress of the pupils in 
these temples of indolence but little inquiry is made." 15 

One of the persistent traditions of the state is that the early 
ante-bellum "Old Field" 16 school teacher was an undesirable 

12 House Journal, Second Auditor's Report, Mathews County, 1830. 

13 Randolph, op. cit., 185. 

14 Memoir of Jonathan P. Cushing, G. W. Dame, M.D., Quarterly Register, 
American Education Society, 1838, XI, 119. 

15 "Lancaster," Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 24, 1843. 

16 The term "Old Field" has reference to the practice of allowing long-culti- 
vated fields to lie idle for a period "to sweeten." This obviated the necessity 
of fertilizer in a country where land was cheap. Rude schoolhouses often ap- 
peared on the cleared but unused land and took their name from their location. 
Of course, there was no one type of schoolhouse and equipment. The average 



no The Free School Idea in Virginia 

citizen. Colonel William Gordon McCabe, for forty years 
after the Civil War headmaster and proprietor of a famous 
academy for boys in Petersburg and Richmond, comments 
on the character of these teachers who swarmed into Virginia 
between 1810 and 1830. "This was," says Colonel McCabe, 
"a class of stiff, formal pedagogues, despised by our boys, 
because they represented so little that appealed to the human 
side of the normally healthy boy, be he North or South." 17 
"They were," he adds further, "the type of pedagogue that 
caused our boys to guffaw over their weary platitudes and 
formal manners." Major W. G. Repass, superintendent of 
schools for Wythe County, said in 18.85, m a historical sketch 
of education of that county: "Some of the teachers of these 
old field schools were invalids, some were slaves to drunken- 
ness, some too lazy to work, most of them entirely ignorant 
of the art of teaching and a terror to their pupils. There were 
a few . . . who possessed culture, intelligence, morality, 
ability." 18 Colonel William Giddings, superintendent of 
schools for Loudoun County, in the same report, 19 is even 
harsher in his denunciation of the " Old Field" teacher of 
Virginia tradition. 

Of course there is much to be said in defense of the better 
class of teachers — at least for the imported private tutors 
and academy masters. Many of these were great teachers, 
good men and became substantial citizens of the common- 
wealth, but many others were unable to evaluate Southern 
institutions and traditions. They were irritated by ideals 
so entirely at variance with their own. Even Fithian, a 

school was not unlike those of rural districts of other states. It was innocent 
of the simplest laws of sanitation, but, perhaps, no worse in this respect than 
many in the twentieth century. Beyond rude benches facing the walls and a high 
desk for the teacher there were no unnecessary furnishings. A teacher usually 
came into the community under the patronage of some influential citizen who often 
donated the use of a spare room in his house, an unused "office" or other outhouse 
on his property, for school purposes. Vide A Visiting Teacher's Description 
of an Old Field School in Virginia in 1801, Barnard, American Journal Education, 
XIII, 748, cited from John Davis' Travels of Four and One-half Years in the 
United States 1 798-1801. Mr. Davis went to Virginia under the patronage of 
Jefferson to teach in what he called a "log hut." For description of a western 
frontier school in 1809, by a former pupil, vide Haymond, History of Harrison 
County, 286. 

17 Education in Virginia before and after the Revolution. An Address on 
Early Schoolmasters, University Virginia, 1888, 38, 39. 

18 Virginia School Report, 1885, Part Third, 288. 

19 Ibid., 209. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War in 

cultured and successful family tutor, is disturbed by his 
own deficiencies in " Dancing, Boxing, Fiddle-playing, Small 
Sword and Cards," by the " Jargon of Dogs and Horses," 
the absence of the "social level among the people," and ex- 
claims: "How different the manners of the people. I try 
to be as cheerful as I can and yet I am blamed for being as 
stupid as a Nun ... at home I am thought to be noisy enough; 
here I am thought to be silent and circumspect as a spy." 20 
In writing to his successor, Fithian tells his friend he will be 
"smitten with the novelty" of the Southern manner of living. 
"You will make ten thousand comparsions which will have 
a tendency to keep you doubtful and unsettled in your notions 
of Morality and Religion." Finally he says: "You come 
here, it is true, with an intention to teach, but you ought 
likewise to have an inclination to learn. At any rate, I 
solemnly injoin it upon you that you never suffer the Spirit 
of a Pedagogue to attend you without the walls of your little 
seminary." 21 

In the case of many "Old Field" school teachers, mere 
transients, not on intimate terms with great families and 
often regarded with suspicion as "foreigners" among the less 
cultured of the neighborhoods, the discomfort of the situation 
must have been great. In fact, Virginia before the War was 
not an easy place for a teacher of strict puritanic conceptions 
of moral discipline "to do his duty" by his pupils. Such a 
determination was apt to be fruitful of trouble to the poor 
alien who was under the misfortune of having been born 
without the confines of the Old Dominion. In many cases, 
the teacher had a real grievance. There was, undoubtedly, 
much looseness in the moral life of the day that cried for 
attention in the schools. The literature of the Sunday School 
movement is full of the lack of discipline — even distressing 
moral depravity of both children and parents of the poorer 
classes — and the general looseness of family self-government 
in the homes of the better classes. The young Virginian 
destined for social leadership is said to have been often "more 

20 Fithian, op. cit., 236, 288, 296, passim. 

21 Ibid., 63. Even the stately minuet was a stumbling block, for he says: 
"After the scholars had their Lesson, Mr. Christian very politely requested me 
to step a Minuet; I excused myself, however, but signified my peculiar pleasure 
in the accuracy of their performance." 



ii2 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

devoted to Hoyle than to Euclid." At any rate, we are told 
on good authority that Virginia youth chafed under strict 
discipline, and his elders frequently sided with him. In fact, 
the distinguished Dr. John Holt Rice is led to write in 1825: 
"It is exceedingly rare to find a parent sufficiently wise and 
impartial to take the part of the teacher [in a case of dis- 
cipline] . . . indeed, the dependence of teachers on the favor 
of parents is so absolute at most institutions, they are under 
strong temptation to be on good terms with the parents . . . 
[otherwise] the result is often bitter and active hostility." 22 

The professional training of teachers was slowly evolved 
in all the American states. As early as 1823 Samuel R. Hall 
attempted a training class for teachers at Concord, Massa- 
chusetts, and in 1826 James G. Carter, of the same state, 
published his " Outlines of an Institute for the Education 
of the Teacher," which led to the experiments at Lexington 
and Bridgewater, in Massachusetts. In 1825 President 
Philip Lindsley, of the University of Tennessee, advocated 
seminaries for the training of teachers; but little was 
actually accomplished in the United States for a generation 
or more. In Virginia Governor Thomas N. Randolph, in 
the second year of the primary school law, 1820, included 
in his message to the legislature: "A great improvement 
would be felt if no teacher were allowed fees from the public 
until he had previously undergone an examination and received 
a license from the University. Furthermore, it would be well 
if the county court would select young men for gratuitous 
education at the University." No mention, however, is 
made of training or qualifications of teachers in any of the 
early statutes — except in such occasional and indefinite 
terms as those used in the special Act of 1808 establishing 
schools on the confiscated glebe of King George County, 
requiring teachers to show "satisfactory evidence of their 
qualifications and morality." 23 In section III, of the Act 
of 1829, commissioners could "give $100 for teachers who 
have been properly examined," but no specific, authoritative 
plan was offered. Moreover, the act remained a dead letter. 

The lack of systematic supervision of teachers and the 

22 Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX, 351. 

23 House Journal, 1808, 21, 51. Acts of Assembly, Jan. 1, 1808. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 113 

absence of " quarterly examination of pupils " are given by 
many writers as contributory causes of poor teaching in 
Virginia. A Virginia gentleman, in describing his journey 
in New England, notes that in Boston the committeemen 
visit the schools every two or three months, examine the pupils 
on the subjects prescribed, and lay the results of the examina- 
tions before the public. 

"Teachers and pupils begin each quarter with the expectation that 
at the close of the quarter their conduct and progress will be brought 
under review. . . . This has a powerful effect . . . and it furnishes in part 
a solution of the question why primary schools have been hitherto so in- 
efficient in Virginia." 24 

Under the Virginia system, he argues, a poor child might 
go to school three to six months with such regularity as he 
chose and the Virginia public must be satisfied with the 
teacher's fee bill as the only evidence that he had done his 
work. The child may have made rapid progress or none at 
all. 

Popular indifference to education also tended, according 
to other interested observers, to discourage good men from 
entering so disreputable and poorly paid a field. To still 
others the precariousness of the profession was a more funda- 
mental cause. The scattered character of the population 
and the consequent rapid change in the centers of school 
population made for what a contemporary critic aptly termed 
the "ambulatory" school — one that moved as the popu- 
lation changed, or when adversity visited the community. 
The conditions which created the ambulatory school were 
the conditions which lay back of the failure of the district 
school system of 1829, i.e., changes of population making 
permanent school buildings impossible to many large areas 
in both the eastern and western sections of the state. Still 
more fundamentally, Virginia was, as she is now to some ex- 
tent, under the economic burden of the one-crop system. 
She was wealthy or poor with the fluctuation in price of 
tobacco, wheat, or corn; independent only in those years 
in which prices made it possible for producers to go from one 
year's crop to the next without borrowing on futures. If 

24 "H." — A Journey in New England, Evangelical and Literary Magazine, 
July 10, 1822, VI, 86. 



ii4 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

the crops failed or prices were low so that products barely 
defrayed the expenses of cultivation, the school and school- 
master were the first to suffer. During hard times, we are 
told, "English schools and academies stood idle for several 
years at a time in erstwhile prosperous districts; while the 
teachers were thrown upon their own resources." 25 

The teaching methods commonly employed in the primary 
school were often a source of community feeling against the 
teacher. It will be recalled that one of the chief causes for 
the widespread popularity of the Sunday schools was its new 
emphasis on rational methods in teaching and its new appeal 
to the instinctive interests of children. A very general 
reaction against memoriter methods and harsh discipline 
is registered by many thoughtful contributors to magazines 
and newspapers from all parts of the state. There are even 
flashes of evidence that such writers realized the incompati- 
bility of the new democracy and these methods borrowed from 
medieval schools. An earnest citizen, endeavoring to show that 
the main difficulty in obtaining good schools and diffusing an 
interest in the arts and sciences is due to harsh discipline and 
poor methods of teaching, exclaims: 

"What is learned is learned in parrot fashion and is recited mechan- 
ically. . . . Hence most young ones go to the school when they must; es- 
cape when they can and finally leave it with stubborn resolution to have as 
little to do with books as possible." 26 

Two newspaper editorials are typical of this well-defined 
intellectual protest against prevailing methods in the lower 
schools and the academies. The Fredericksburg Virginia Her- 
ald, November 28, 1830, contains a sarcastic editorial under 
the caption, "Note on the Pleasures of School": 

"What are the beatitudes of a scholastic paradise? To be fagged, 
flogged, thumped, and coerced to mental labor and constrained in personal 
liberty. This may be all very proper and salutary (so is physic) but it is 
not happiness, and there is very, very rarely an instance of a boy, while 
he is in one of these prisons of the body, and treadmills of the mind, who is 
not always wishing to get out of school and to get home." 

And an editorial in the Portsmouth Old Dominion, July 15, 
1840, gives a very significant presentation of the doctrine' 

25 "Philodemus," Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX, 137. 

26 Ibid., IX, 136. Cf. section of Dr. B. M. Smith's Report of Prussian Primary 
Schools, dealing with class-room method, on page 118 of this study. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 115 

of " interest" and "use" as an antidote for the current 
"Pleasures of School": 

' ' The memory of the pupil is burdened beyond what the understanding 
apprehends — a useless storing up of unmeaning facts. All the intellec- 
tual powers should be exercised, strengthened and improved in harmony. 
There is too little effort made to excite a spirit of inquiry and to arouse 
the energies of the mind; everything now proceeds on dull routine which 
gives the pupil a distaste for school and makes him disinclined to the pur- 
suit of knowledge. . . . Let the instruction communicated be adapted 
to the juvenile capacity of the pupil . . . and in a manner calculated to in- 
terest him." 

A visitor to an academy which apparently had incorporated 
Pestalozzian methods proposes better class-room methods as 
a sound basis for school development: 

"This old and stupid and sterilizing system [that of learning by rote] 
is ever yet the lever of Archimedes with vulgar minds. ... It is the ham- 
mering system. You can hear its clatter and noise in every prototype 
of antiquity which clings to the ancient order of things in spite of the march 
of mind. Nor is it only in the old field schools that the dull, hard lesson 
is crammed down word by word until the student, like Byron, contracts 
a hatred for his Horace. The odious system is even now entitled to its 
monstrous de droit in some of the courts of the literati of the country. . . . 
Such is not the case in Rumford Academy! . . . Here the student becomes 
in idea the inhabitant of Greece and Rome and his knowledge of ancient 
literature is based on a critical knowledge of everything relating to the 
moral, religious, political and national character of those master spirits 
of the olden time." 27 

The superintendent of the Literary Fund, James Brown, 
Jr., showed during this period considerably more professional 
spirit and knowledge of current literature and school progress 
in other states than many state superintendents of a later 
day. Satisfied apparently that success of public education 
in Virginia lay in the improvement and expansion of the exist- 
ing system rather than through radical change by legislation, 
he began a crusade in 1830 for better teachers and better 
methods of teaching; for uniform textbooks and a greater 
local interest in public schools. In this he reflected the na- 
tional movement for common schools and led no mean move- 
ment within the state for popular education. His chief 
effort was put in stimulating his county commissioners to 
greater interest and greater energy. His method consisted in 

27 "Visitor," Richmond Enquirer, Nov. i, 1833. This was Rumford Academy, 
located in King William County. 



n6 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

repeatedly asking his commissioners pointed questions as to 
their practices and needs. Answers to these questions from 
all parts of the state were abstracted and published with the 
proceedings of the General Assembly after being laid before 
that body as part of the superintendent's annual report. By 
1834 ten counties report that some form of certification 
and examinations is in force. The counties of Charles City, 
Charlotte, Franklin, New Kent, Pocahontas, Washington, 
Southampton, and Smythe are reported as those examining 
their teachers. Pittsylvania is " gratified to state that the 
results of some of their labors have terminated in turning 
out from the primary schools young gentlemen who have 
taken charge of schools and also other important departments 
in science, morals and religion." In the same year, in his 
attempt to gain some degree of uniformity in practice, Brown 
receives and publishes by counties the titles of all textbooks 
used in each subject throughout the state. 28 In 1835 he 
admonishes his commissioners: " Teachers of proper qualifi- 
cations and good character should always be selected. . . . 
For this system they should be proficient in reading, writing, 
and cyphering." 

The efforts of the superintendent of the Literary Fund to 
improve the common schools were supplemented quite gener- 
ally, as has been already indicated, by the newspapers and 
by many lyceums. But a most conspicuous service to the 
state was given by a group of academy and college teachers 
and friends under the leadership of the Reverend Dr. 
Jonathan P. Cushing, president of Hampden-Sidney, a Pres- 
byterian college in Prince Edward County. Dr. Cushing, 

28 The Second Auditor apparently continues this work by annual question- 
naires to the commissioners. In 1845 the returns show the following uniformity 
among the schools of the state, the numerals indicating the number of counties 
reporting a text: Primers: The American, 19, New York, 4; Spellers, Web- 
ster's, 49, Comley's, 23, Eclectic, 17, etc; Grammars, Murray's, 30, Smith's, 25, 
Kirkham's, 15, etc.; Arithmetics, Pike's, 63, Smith's 22, Jesse's, 12, Davie's, 4, 
etc.; Geography, Onley's, 36, Parley's, 12, Mitchell's, 12, etc.; U. S. History, 
Grimshaw's, 8; European History, Grimshaw's; Readers, The Bible and New 
Testament, 53, the English Reader, 51, the New York Readers, I, II, III, 50, 
Parley's works, 19, and twenty other different texts. In this list, Arithmetic, 
Reading, Spelling, Grammar and, perhaps, Geography, appear with greatest 
frequency. The Bible was the most popular reader. Comstock's Natural Phi- 
losophy and Chemistry, Day's Algebra, Gallaudet's Natural Theology, and Gib- 
son's Surveyor are listed for one county each. House Journal, 1845-6, Document 
No. 4, 41. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 117 

according to his biographer, 29 was a close student of the Vir- 
ginia charity school system and " exerted himself on all 
occasions to watch its pernicious effects and to endeavor 
to reorganize the whole system. As a valuable instrument 
for effecting this grand object, he succeeded in establishing 
a society or Institute of Education which through its orators 
and essayists at college commencements endeavored to arouse 
the people from their lethargy upon the subject of common 
schools . . . and to lay bare the root of the evil — inefficient 
teachers — and show how it might be removed." This move- 
ment seems to have followed very closely the establishment 
of the American Institute of Instruction, the first meeting of 
which was held in Boston, August 19-22, 1830, with delegates 
from eleven states present. 30 

The first session of the Virginia Institute met at Hampden- 
Sidney, September 29, 183 1, 31 to inquire into the state of 
the lower schools. A permanent organization was effected as 
a result of this meeting; at a second conference, September 
27, 1832, the query, "Is there no room for improvement of 
common school education in Virginia?" was the chief topic 
for discussion. At a third meeting "alarming reports of the 
real state of education" were given, but some "cheering 
facts" reported regarding "the permanency of native teachers" 
and the opportunity for female education. An address on the 
"Advantages of Associations for the Promotion of Education" 
by Hon. J. M. Garnett, of Essex, so impressed this institute 
that it was ordered printed and distributed through the state. 32 

29 Vide "Memoirs of Jonathan P. Cushing," Quarterly Register, American 
Educational Society, 1838, 119. Rev. Dr. Cushing, a Presbyterian minister, 
came to Virginia from New Hampshire in 187 1. In 1 819 he became a professor, 
and from 1821-35 was president of Hampden-Sidney College. 

30 Barnard, American Journal of Education, 1856, II, 19-33, 241-55. It ap- 
pears from the proceedings of the American Institute of Instruction for 1831 
that Thomas S. Giimke, Charleston, S.C., Philip Lindsley, president of the Uni- 
versity of Tennessee, Alva Woods, president of University of Alabama, and William 
Wirt, Baltimore, Md., were among the first vice-presidents. Oliver A. Shaw, 
of Richmond, Va., was one of the first counselors and an active participant in a 
business meeting and debate of the institute. In 1831 "Mr. Shaw gave a lecture 
on Arithmetic in connection with an exhibition and explanation of his Visible 
Numerator." Vide Proceedings, American Institute of Instruction, I, xviii. 

31 Norfolk Herald, Nov. 8, 1831; Barnard, Educational Associations, 809. 
Contemporaneous with the Virginia Institute, Florida, 1830; Louisiana, 1831; 
Tennessee, 1831; North Carolina, 1831; Georgia, 1831; organized institutes 
of similar character. 

32 Vide writer's Elementary Education in Virginia during Early Nineteenth 
Century, 191 1, Columbia University Library. 



n8 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Although Virginia had never made provision for training 
teachers, many individual citizens made diagnoses of the 
state's need and proposed numerous solutions for the diffi- 
culty. It has already been noted that beginning with 
Jefferson's first bills, state scholarships at the academies 
and the University were urged as a means of furnishing state 
leadership for public service from among the poor. In 1820 
Governor Thomas N. Randolph pointed out to the legis- 
lature, in his annual message, the necessity of training teachers 
at public expense. 33 Ex-Governor James Barbour draws our 
attention in 1836 to the fact that at the creation of the Lit- 
erary Fund free scholarships at the prospective university 
were pledged — one for each senatorial district — " before the 
free school party consented to the idea of an university." 34 
Mercer tells us that attempts were made in the struggle of 
181 5-16 to imitate France in giving "gratuitous instruction 
to candidates for the office of teachers who should be given a 
fixed but liberal compensation for the instruction of their 
successors." At this time, Mercer says, it was felt by some 
that the monitorial system furnished "the best imaginable 
mode of creating valuable teachers." 35 Others pressed the 
claim, we are told, of the scheme inaugurated by Felbiger in 
Silesia under the auspices of Frederick William and still 
others of the Prussian teacher-training classes. 

Dr. Benjamin^BL, Smith, in 1838 (vide p. 131), reviewing the 
Prussian school system, raises the question: "Can you expect 
a man with iron hand and wooden brains to successfully 
train your children?" He recommends that the state create 
a normal department in each of the colleges of the state and 
that a special department for the training of Latin or high 
school teachers be established at the University of Virginia. 36 
In outlining the actual instruction in the Prussian primary 
schools in the first class, comprising children under eight 
years of age, at the Francke School in Halle, he says: 

"The teacher's object is to teach the children to think. He uses no 
book, asking them the simplest questions on objects around them. . . . 

33 House Journal, 1820, 7. 34 Farmer's Register, 1836, 685. 

35 Mercer, op. cit., 70. 

36 House Journal, 1839, Document No. 26. Discussed in the succeeding chap- 
ter of this study, also in writer's Elementary Education in Virginia during Early 
Nineteenth Century, 191 1. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 119 

He then exercises their powers of perception. Reading: Instead of a 
memoriter process of teaching the alphabet and the slow, tedious spelling 
lesson, the teacher exercises the vocal organs on certain sounds. With 
each sound is associated the form of the letter which represents it. All 
elementary sounds are thus taught before the names of the letter, 
and thus a distinction is drawn between the power and the name. . . . 
Arithmetic: The simplest elements of this science are taught by means 
of objects. . . . After the pupils have been taught to count, the simplest 
processes of addition and subtraction are made perfectly familiar by the 
illustrations which their own persons or the furniture of the room afford. 
Multiplication and division succeed on the same plan. Instead of ad- 
vancing to the other arithmetical principles, these are carried out by in- 
creasing the numbers in the various combinations, till they not only learn 
the multiplication table, but can, with facility, add any amount which 
may occur in the ordinary concerns of life? 1 . . . Geometry is taught in 
the second class. The first lessons are mere explanations of geometrical 
forms and terms for which a full supply of cards, painted, and litho- 
graphed figures of squares, is required, together with wooden models of 
solids." 

Even in the absence of training classes for teachers, sporadic 
efforts were made to improve methods of teaching. Lancas- 
terianism had been seized upon with this hope but was found 
only practicable in the towns and was finally given up alto- 
gether because this hope failed. As a stimulant to the Normal 
School movement, the philosophy of Pestalozzi was felt at sev- 
eral diverse points in Virginia, at a very early period; so early, 
in fact, as to indicate that its influence was direct from Yver- 
dun and not through England or the textbooks of the Northern 
states. At this point J. C. Cabell, so prominent in his cham- 
pionship of the University forces in the legislature, 1815-25, 
made a less known contribution to primary educational prog- 
ress. 38 As early as 1824 he reports on the success of Pestaloz- 
zian methods in use in the Literary Fund schools of his home 
county of Nelson. Mr. Cabell's health compelled him to wan- 
der through Europe from 1803 to 1806. He tells us that he 
spent most of his time in desultory study and observation. It 
seems that he became acquainted with the Philadelphia Scotch 
philanthropist, William McClure, and accompanied him on his 
second visit (1805) to Pestalozzi's school at Yverdun. 39 This 

37 He cites "the books of Emerson, Colburn, and particularly Smith, as illus- 
trations of the course alluded to." Italics mine except on think. 

38 So far as I know no one has heretofore made any reference to this interest- 
ing fact. Vide writer's Elementary Education in Virginia during Early Nine- 
teenth Century, 191 1. 

39 Mr. McClure was accompanied by "C. Cabell, a brother of the Governor 
of Virginia. . . . They were soon convinced of the solidity, importance and use- 



120 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

visit and other observations made him a friend of education 
from the time he entered the General Assembly in 1809. I n 
the Auditor's report for 1824 Mr. Cabell, who was the clerk 
of the Nelson County Board of School Commissioners, reports 
for his board and sets forth arguments "for the introduction 
of 'mental' arithmetic as taught by Pestalozzi." The teachers 
of Nelson were evidently familiar with Pestalozzian methods. 
Eleven of them, after proper instruction, had tried the new 
arithmetic and, in a statement to their board, pronounced 
it a success. So enthusiastic is Cabell that we quote him 
in part: 

"It is a sure cure for the miserable conditions most of our schools have 
fallen into ... it gives new interest to the important subject of Arithmetic. 
The new system has been adopted by the whole of our public schools, 
and from present indications, it promises in the course of another year 
to become the exclusive and universal method." 40 

This is novel evidence from a mountain county of Virginia. 
Yet, in 1829, another mountain county (Washington), far re- 
moved from Nelson, made a recommendation equally striking. 
In discussing the Act of 1829, the Washington commissioners 
point out two difficulties in the way of inaugurating the new 
district system — insufficient financial aid from the state and 
an inadequate supply of qualified, native teachers. To re- 
move the second difficulty, they offered the following suggestion : 

"To effect this important step, this Board would humbly suggest that 
the General Assembly of Virginia authorize a school to be established in 
each county on the plan of Pestalozzi for the education of young men as 
teachers." 41 

This interest in Pestalozzianism had already led some un- 
known gentleman of Lynchburgh — in the county adjoining 
Nelson just cited — to send a memorial to the legislature 
praying for the establishment of a Fellenberg School at the 
state penitentiary as a state experiment. The author of the 

fulness of the Pestalozzian system." Will S. Monroe, Pestalozzianism in America. 
It is commonly held that Pestalozzianism reached America through two main 
channels: (i) at Philadelphia, 1812, through the philanthropy of Mr. McClure, 
who financed Neef; (2) through Dr. E. A. Sheldon's training school at Oswego, 
N.Y., 1862, with Miss Jones, an English Pestalozzian teacher and Herman Krusi, 
a pupil of Pestalozzi at Yverdun. The latter movement, through its teachers soon 
spread more rapidly than the earlier experiments of Neef. 

40 House Journal, 1825-6, Second Auditor's Report, Nelson County. 

41 Ibid., 1830, Washington County. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 121 

memorial sees a relief from the evils of charity education in 
the plan of Fellenberg; and in uniting industrial training with 
school instruction, an impetus to popular education. 

"Mankind is not aware of the influence of habit on the juvenile mind 
. . . where less is expended on education more is expended on officers, 
whipping-posts, etc. . . . We hope the time is not far distant when we shall 
have a State Model School established to which our citizens may look for 
an improved and rational system of public instruction." 42 

At least one scheme for the improvement of county schools 
and teachers was inspired by the lyceum movement, by the 
crusade for scientific farming and the betterment of farm life 
which characterized Virginia in the late 1830's. The plan 
appears over the name of J. Holbrook, 43 in the Portsmouth 
Old Dominion, for September 14, 1839, and is worth presenting 
here in digest: 

"Men of high attainments cannot be obtained in schools at $25 per 
month. No teachers can be retained in the Common Schools till well- 
paid and till the profession stands as high as medicine. . . . Three-fourths 
of the children are farmers' children and the system best fitted to farmers 
is the system for the country. Therefore, a scientific farmer should 
teach the neighborhood school for four months in winter [when the boys 
would attend]; and his wife or daughter, the summer months, [when the 
girls and small children would attend] as it has been demonstrated that 
women are best adapted to teach the very young. As teachers these 
would be far superior to the transient youth who uses teaching as a cats- 
paw to aid him to another profession. The establishment of such a system 
would cause teaching to become a profession. Resident teachers would 
act from higher motives than interlopers from other sections, and, by 
reason of their practicality, would be better qualified than teachers spe- 
cially trained but removed from the real life the children are to enter." 

The writer would have a happy admixture of theory and 
practice. Not unmindful of theory, he advocates "a system 
of lyceums" — to be held weekly or semi-monthly in every 
community — where the farmer-teachers and their lady as- 
sistants could hear great teachers and see the sciences dem- 
onstrated with scientific apparatus. "Here young ladies and 

42 "Alpha," Lynchburg Virginian, March 5, 1824. Editors of Richmond 
Enquirer and Constitutional Whig were requested to copy this article. 

43 This is probably Josiah Holbrook of Connecticut, prominent in the Ameri- 
can Lyceum movement, a sketch of whose life appears in Barnard's American 
Journal o] Education, VIII, i860, 229-47. "His main object was the establish- 
ment, throughout the United States, of popular associations for the diffusion of 
scientific knowledge connected with the useful arts. . . organizing mechanics 
and farmers in weekly evening classes." The last years of Holbrook's life were 
spent in stimulating educational interest in the rural districts of Virginia. 



122 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

gentlemen could become familiar with method and qualify 
themselves by a course of reading." He cites three great 
advantages of such a plan: first, a good farmer-teacher could 
be obtained for a salary upon which an outsider could not 
support himself; second, it would tend to raise teaching to 
the dignity of a profession; third, from an agricultural stand- 
point, it would combine experimental knowledge with theory. 
Mr. Holbrook's scheme was another plea for a practical school 
and qualified teachers, and there are evidences that towards 
the close of the period a modification of the scheme was in 
practice in some rural localities. 

In a Memorial from the Rockbridge Agricultural Society, 
1840, Henry Ruffner, Francis H. Smith, and J. D. Ewing 
presented a plan for a state normal school of one hundred 
pupils under the direction of a principal and three tutors. 
The original cost in buildings was estimated at $12,000; the 
annual cost of maintenance, including salaries, board, washing, 
books, fuel, etc., for all students, at $13,000; each student 
should "serve the state as a teacher five years, in consideration 
of the expense of his education." 44 

The governor's committee, appointed in March, 1841, to 
devise a school system for consideration by the legislature, 
reported "that the greatest obstacle to education in Virginia 
is the want of well-educated and moral teachers." It sug- 
gested that either "a great normal school be established" or 
that departments for instruction in the art of teaching "be 
maintained in certain academies and colleges where students 
who would pledge to teach in the common schools upon gradua- 
tion would be given state scholarships." 45 The Clarksburg 
Educational Convention, November 9, 1841, held 46 that nor- 
mal schools are the first step toward the perfection of a school 
system. It urged one central state normal school or one for 
each senatorial district. The latter was held preferable, for the 
neighborhood schools might serve as practice schools and the 
best methods would the sooner be brought home to them. 
The convention committee, too, advocated state subsidy of 
departments of education in private academies and colleges. 
As a very happy thought this committee suggested that 

44 House Journal, 1841-2, Document 53. 45 Ibid. 

46 Minutes reprinted with Second Auditor's Report, House Journal, 1842. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 123 

Congress, then disposing of the " Smithsonian legacy left 
the United States for the diffusing of knowledge, might fulfill 
the highest hope of Mr. Smithson" by founding normal schools. 
The minority report of the committee on primary schools of 
the Richmond Educational Convention of 1845, centers its 
objection to the prevailing primary system in the fact that "it 
makes no provision for the examination of teachers . . . it 
embraces no provision for the education of teachers." 

The agitation for better teachers and the numerous sug- 
gestions for normal schools, county training classes, and 
practice schools bore little fruit before the Civil War. 
Randolph-Macon College, in 1839, attempted to create a 
department of education for the training of common school 
teachers. 47 Nothing came of it. But under an act of March, 
1842, permitting the Virginia Military Institute to share the 
Literary Fund revenue, that institution received state scholars 
who in lieu of their tuition pledged themselves to teach in the 
schools in the state. This was the final acceptance of the 
plan urged by C. F. Mercer, in 181 5-16, suggested by Jef- 
ferson before him, and recommended by Dr. B. M. Smith in 
1838 and by the Governor's legislative committee in 1841. 
In spite of these various suggestions there is no evidence that 
the "state students" at the Institute were given any direct 
professional training in any branch of pedagogy. Super- 
intendent Francis H. Smith simply states, in 1843 — m what 
Thomas Ritchie was pleased to call "a brilliant report," — 
that "many graduates from this school are fully engaged in 
instruction in our academies and primary schools and have in 
every case given great satisfaction. The academies in Rich- 
mond, Norfolk, Petersburg, Fredericksburg, and Winchester 
are supplied with them and others are teaching in Am- 
herst, Buckingham, Gloucester, Roanoke, Botetourt and 
Rockbridge." 48 

More than twenty years afterwards Superintendent Smith 
said, in an annual report, "If we contemplate the work of 
the Virginia Military Institute as a normal school the results 
may be seen in no doubtful light. . . . Our first teachers 

47 Adams, Herbert B., Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia, 244. 

48 Richmond Enquirer, Feb. 1, 1844. Annual Report, Superintendent, V. M. I., 
1843- 



124 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

went to work in 1843, at a time when it was regarded as 
unworthy for a young Virginian to engage in the profession 
of teaching." 49 These young teachers, with their scientific 
interest and practical training, were a new element in the 
schools of the state. They helped stimulate, according to 
General Smith, the industrial classes and practical interests 
which the mechanic's institutes and lyceums were inadequately 
prepared to meet. This supply of native teachers, however, 
was small and went chiefly to the higher schools. 

When, in 1844, the General Assembly cited the University 
of Virginia to show cause why its annuity should not be 
devoted to common school extension, the trustees of that in- 
stitution insisted that each academy founded by such of their 
alumni as " Powers, Tutwiler, Maupin, Coleman, Harrison, 
Davis, Bushnell, Barksdale, Gait, Slaughter, McKee, Turner, 
Saunders, etc., has become a Normal School for an extensive 
neighborhood, — destined by its example and by the teachers 
it sends forth to banish from the inferior schools the ignorant 
pretension which has heretofore so generally occupied the 
chair of instruction; and to supply in its place the clear and 
really profitable teachings of men trained to accurate knowl- 
edge and enlightened method." 50 

For many years attempts were made to arouse interest 
in "female education." After the Revolution a number of 
seminaries for girls were established. James Mercer Garnett 
was one of the earliest advocates in this cause. By 1850 
many women teachers are referred to in the schools supported 
by state funds. In a memorial, 1850, to the legislature, the 
trustees of the Fredericksburg Southern Female Institute ask 
for incorporation and for a state appropriation, saying: 

"If the encouragement given . . . the education of young men has been 
so blessed, will not the present legislature [approve] this first effort to raise 
upon our soil the standard of female education? . . . We offer in exchange 
the valuable consideration of instructing one young lady from each sena- 
torial district for a teacher. By this arrangement the pressing demand 
which has been so long made in vain for competent Southern teachers 
would soon be abundantly supplied. . . . One reason why the young 
women of Virginia have not hitherto devoted themselves to teaching is 
that they have not enjoyed opportunities of thoroughly preparing them- 
selves for that responsible office . . . and therefore, says one of the ablest 

49 House Documents, 1868. Report, Gen. F. H. Smith, Supt., V. M. I., 1867. 

50 House Journal, 1845-46, Document No. 15, 42. 



The Elementary School Teacher before the War 125 

women of this generation, 'a college expressly to teach women the art of 
teaching would be a most useful institution. '" 51 

An attempt has been made in this chapter to indicate 
through contemporary evidence the extent to which the 
prevailing type of elementary teacher disturbed the public 
mind and retarded the growth of popular schools. We have 
seen how widely the defects of the common schools were 
attributed to the indifferent character and qualifications of 
the teachers. That there was an increase in native teachers 
in the East in the last decades of the ante-bellum period there 
is little doubt; still the " Yankee" teacher persisted. Many 
of the best teachers in the colleges, academies, and lower 
schools came out of Northern colleges; some of them later 
served in the Confederate army. In the lower schools, how- 
ever, teachers were too generally transients and were, there- 
fore, often subjects of ridicule and suspicion. As the feeling 
against the abolition movement became more and more 
bitter this outsider often represented a sinister influence and 
many communities discovered that their suspicion was well 
founded. A number of statutes of this period indicate how 
frequently these teachers were found to be colporteurs in the 
service of the anti-slavery propaganda. The success of 
popular education waited upon the rise of a native teaching 
class in whose social ideals and class-room methods the country 
people would repose confidence. 

51 House Journal, 1850-1, Document No. 29, signed by B. R. Wellford and F. 
Slaughter, president and secretary of the Board of Trustees. In 1887 the State 
Female Normal School at Farmville was inaugurated on this plan. 



CHAPTER IX 



1840-60. A WIDESPREAD POPULAR MOVEMENT FOR PUB- 
LIC EDUCATION 

One of the interesting impressions a reader of Virginia 
historical source material receives is that of the apparent 
neglect of internal state problems for the great national issues 
under discussion in Washington. The more prominent Vir- 
ginia newspapers printed the proceedings of Congress in as 
much detail as those of their own state legislature. In the 
libraries, still intact, of great ante-bellum houses one may 
expect to find the Congressional Record complete. Private 
letters of the ante-bellum period show a keen concern over 
local congressional elections, an interest one does not find in 
more modern correspondence, even among public men. There 
is no doubt that the average educated Virginian took national 
politics seriously. 

One may, perhaps, find the explanation for this devotion 
to national politics in the peculiar genius Virginia had shown 
for leadership in the formation of the Union and in her large 
share in its success. The colonial gentleman, freed from the 
details and the manual labor of his estate by many slaves, 
had early interested himself in English politics and, according 
to Dr. Lyon G. Tyler, was usually familiar with the political 
theories of Sidney, Montesquieu, Locke, etc. Virginia youth 
were accustomed to hear their elders discuss great issues. 
This was one of the benefits of the tutorial system which 
united pupils, tutor, parents, and visitors during long winter 
evenings and at meal times. 

There can be no doubt that after 1825 the fundamental 
cause upon which this interest turned was economic. Slave- 
holders were quite naturally interested in their property. 1 

1 The earnest effort of many early Virginia leaders to abolish slavery is a com- 
monplace fact to students of American history. A bill for the manumission and 
education of the negro is one of the forgotten provisions of Jefferson's first con- 

126 



Virginia Common School Revival 127 

An emotional anti-slavery propaganda, an occasional agrarian 
attack on property by some half dozen radical newspapers 2 in 
Northern cities, and the disputed right to slaves in the western 
territories, finally came to overshadow such state questions as 
trans-Alleghany land titles, new waterways, and the extension 
of popular education. Particularly was this true when these 
questions involved sharp conflicts of interest between the 
various sections and a vigorous abolition sentiment within 
the state itself. These national and state sectional differences 
became acute in Virginia at just the time when the nonslave- 
holding states were rapidly evolving the free school idea — 
that is, from 1840 to i860, the period following the rise of 
democracy under the Jacksonian regime and characterized in 
Massachusetts by the campaign of James G. Carter and 
Horace Mann, in Connecticut by that of Henry Barnard, and 
in New York by that of David B. Page. 3 

In spite of these handicaps, Virginia moved rapidly toward 
a state system of free schools. In fact, from 1839-49, it may 
be said to have carried on a campaign comparable to, often 
exceeding in intensity, the great movements in the other 
states. This period can hardly be called a revival, as the in- 
telligent leadership of the state had been upon the side of popu- 
lar education since the days of the Mercer- Jefferson contest of 
1815-18. There were no protests from responsible men against 
education at any time; division came over the principle of 
administration and the best means of dispelling ignorance and 
apathy. With all that has been said of property's defense 
against "wild democracy's" empty pocket-book, Virginia was, 

stitution. Charles Fenton Mercer was an active president of the American 
Colonization Society. Under the inspiration of Professors St. George Tucker 
and George Wythe, students at William and Mary and scions of the best families 
of the state advocated freedom for slaves in their literary societies and even peti- 
tioned the legislature for an adjudication of the question. President Lyon G. 
Tyler points out the existence in the South in 1825 of "some three hundred socie- 
ties bottomed upon a moral dissatisfaction with the institution of slavery." At- 
tempts to justify it came as a natural reaction to agitation under Ganison. Vide 
College of William and Mary: its History and Work, 79; also Mumford, B.B., 
Virginia's Attitude toward Slavery and Secession. 

2 Southern Review, VI, 1-3 1. 

3 Massachusetts created a state board, but no state superintendent in 1837; 
Rhode Island created a commissioner of school funds and superintendent of common 
schools in 1842, and in 1849 founded a normal school, making its principal state 
superintendent as well. In 1845, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire created 
the office of state superintendent of schools. New York created this office as early 
as 1 81 2, but revoked the act in 1821. 



128 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

perhaps, as much marked by fervid oratory in behalf of public 
schools, by the number of local and state conventions and 
aggressive campaigns for free schools, as was Massachusetts 
or New York at this notable period. Although it produced a 
host of leaders, it did not, however, produce a Horace Mann 
of single purpose and self-sacrificing mission who could force a 
state thus torn by sectionalism to come together on a common 
plan. Jefferson had appeared too early in political evolution 
to effect the culmination of his hopes within his own lifetime. 

The best newspapers and periodicals of both political parties 
in the East and the West published many letters and whole- 
hearted editorials on the need of common free schools. 
Thomas Ritchie, of the Richmond Enquirer, had championed 
the cause since he assumed the editorship of that paper in 
1804. The Evangelical and Literary Magazine, under the editor- 
ship of Reverend John Holt Rice, had been a large contributing 
influence in the success of the academy subsidy and in exposing 
the injustice of the Act of 1818. Virginia's proudest and most 
exclusive literary venture, The Southern Literary Messenger, 
contains many educational discussions, 4 and one of its editors, 
John R. Thompson, was a lyceum lecturer on popular educa- 
tion. Many lyceums, then popular in the state, devoted 
sessions to the cause of public education. A Portsmouth paper 
praises an address by one Theophilus Fiske before the lyceum 
of that city. 5 The Richmond Whig "observes that the public 
mind is beginning to take interest in the all important sub- 
ject. . . . Meetings to consider the best system for the educa- 
tion of all the children of the commonwealth have been held 
in Danville, Lynchburg, and in Powhatan and King and 
Queen counties." 6 . , 

This spirit among the best people, Governor David Campbell 
represented when in his 1839 message to the legislature he 

4 Southern Literary Messenger, I, 725-35; II, 436, 477, 561, 613; VII, 631; 
XIII, 685; XIV, 597; XX, 65; XXIV, 161, 241, 401; XXV, 55, 62, 131, 133. 
Unfortunately, this magazine in 1840 in order to reserve its purely literary char- 
acter, excluded all lyceum and convention addresses. In Feb. 1842, however, the 
Messenger says it relaxed its rule against publishing addresses "to publish that 
of James Mercer Garnett's on Popular Education on account of the importance of 
the subject and the sound views and just opinions," etc. By unanimous vote 
of the first Richmond convention, Dec. 9, 1841, this address was ordered published 
and the Messenger was chosen as the medium. 

5 Portsmouth Old Dominion, Sept. 21, 1839. 

6 The Richmond Whig, Sept. 27, 1839, — political opponent of Ritchie's Enquirer. 



Virginia Common School Revival 129 

urged reorganization of education as the state's "first, great, 
and imperative duty/' pointing out the presence of 200,000 
children between five and fifteen years, and the necessity of 
caring for 60,000 children excluded from school under the 
poor law. The present system was, he said, "both defective 
in its results and imperfectly executed." 

In the absence of adequate data for determining illiteracy, 
Governor Campbell used the number of those who, in ninety- 
three counties, could not write their names on marriage 
licenses 7 and found that in the twenty years of the primary 
system the percentage of illiteracy had remained stationary. 
Aroused by these facts and in the efforts to fulfill his pledges 
of the election campaign, he appealed for a state appropria- 
tion of $200,000 to be added to the Literary Fund income and 
for a general levy for the establishment and maintenance of 
8000 schools and the employment of 4000 teachers. At first, 
it was suggested, one teacher might divide his time between 
two schools. In urging the levy he held that "a school es- 
tablished and maintained by both public and private con- 
tributions would be better managed and better attended" 
than if maintained exclusively by public bounty. Under a 
cooperative community plan citizens might contribute a small 
part toward the education of their children and escape the 
ignominy of charity. 

The session of the Assembly to which Governor Campbell 
addressed this message, 1839-40, is notable for a number of 
plans, reports, and resolutions. 8 "A Plan of a Citizen" was 
presented by John Tyler, submitting the question of "Tax 
or No Tax" for schools to popular vote. Mr. Coleman called 
up a bill for a District School system. None of them, it 
seems, was enacted. 

In response to Governor Campbell's request by letter of 
September 4, 1838, Benjamin M. Smith 9 submitted certain 

7 Governor's Message, House Journal, Jan, 7, 1839. 

In 1818 — 4682 applied and 11 27 could not write their names. 
In 1827 — 5088 " " 1167 " 

In 1837— 4614 "• " 1048 " 

8 House Journal, 1839-40, School Bills No. 10, 15, 249, et al. 

9 Ibid., 1839, Document No. 26. Benjamin M. Smith, Danville, Va., Jan. 1 and 
15, 1839. He was prominent in the common school movement and with Scott 
and Ritchie wrote the Primary School Memorial of the Educational Convention, 
Richmond, 1841. 



130 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

" observations on the systems of education pursued in some 
European countries [which] may be useful to the General 
Assembly of our own state," a Report on the Prussian Primary 
School System and a supplement, "Suggestions on the Ap- 
plication of this System of Primary Schools to Virginia." 
He tells us that while in Prussia he "resided mostly in Halle, 
a city celebrated for the location of the orphan house, es- 
tablished by Francke in 1694-8." He bases his report on 
"notes taken on the spot and the observations of others under 
similar circumstances, particularly Professor Stowe of Cin- 
cinnati," who made his report on this subject to the Ohio 
legislature in 1837. Dr. Smith's report is, perhaps, the most 
significant document of the period and deserves to rank with 
the early American reports on the European school systems. 10 
It should be regarded as something more than a mere reprint 
of the Stowe report. "Education is more than instruction," 
he says; "it is the drawing out of the mind. Memory, judg- 
ment, imagination, conception, abstraction, as well as simple 
perception, are called forth into vigorous exercise. While 
useful matter is placed before the mind, that mind is taught 
to appropriate and use it." 

At Governor Campbell's specific request the following topics 
were discussed in the Smith report: 

(1) Mode of establishing primary schools in Prussia. 

(2) Their organization, branches taught, and the length of 

term. 

(3) Expense per child of such schools, and the part assumed 

by parent and by state. 

(4) How teachers are obtained, — their salaries, qualifications, 

and training. 

(5) A seminary or normal school for teachers. 

(6) Outline of course of study, with a daily program for primary 

grades and pertinent observations on method. 

(7) Statistics on Prussian primary schools, showing their 

growth and high efficiency. 

(8) Discipline and miscellaneous topics. 

10 Vide Russell's Education in Germany in Years 1820-21-22; Julius' Out- 
line of Prussian System, 1835; Victor Cousin's State Public Education in Prussia 
1836; Calvin E. Stowe's, 1837, etc. 



Virginia Common School Revival 131 

The report gives an excellent description of method as applied 
to the subjects in the grades, stressing the nonsectarian reli- 
gious instruction — "historical, geographical, perceptive rather 
than doctrinal" His great criticism of the system is "the great 
want of books and periodicals adapted to the popular mind 
... a popular literature." His outline of instruction and 
method was given in some detail in the preceding chapter. 

In the supplement Dr. Smith makes specific application 
of the Prussian system to Virginia conditions. "We cannot," 
says he, "copy such a monarchical system, but we can catch 
certain principles for application in a republic." The first 
of these principles is that education is a state and parental 
duty, that nothing will so promote public welfare as will 
education of the masses. Second, the principle of general 
taxation for schools, and the error in branding as a "pauper" 
a child who does not pay for its education. "We must see 
that education is a public benefit and tax ourselves for it." 
Third, Prussian success is largely due to trained teachers. 
A normal department should be established at each college 
and a special department at the University of Virginia for 
the training of "Latin School" or high school teachers. Such 
teachers would pledge themselves to teach in Virginia after 
graduation in lieu of their tuition. "We should welcome 
teachers if they come from China so that they serve the state 
and stay with us." Fourth, we might imitate the superior 
machinery of the Prussian schools. Fifth, more science, 
civil government, and good citizenship, drawing, and agri- 
culture should be introduced. Finally, he demonstrates the 
practical necessity of having a free system from primary to 
university for every child. "The true greatness of a people 
does not consist in borrowing nothing from others, but in 
borrowing from all whatever is good, and in perfecting what- 
ever it appropriates." 

But the great and convincing data in favor of immediate 
action for common schools came in the educational statistics 
of the United States census of 1840. It stung the pride of 
Virginians by placing in bold relief the state's illiteracy, and 
stirred a new and greater effort for common school legislation of 
the character that all the Northern and Western states were 
then contending for. The trans-Alleghany sections took the 



132 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

leadership in this renaissance, but the impulse was felt through- 
out the state. A storm of protest arose in the Clarksburg 
(now West Virginia) Educational Convention, 1841, and the 
Lexington Conference, 1841, and, sweeping eastward, through 
meetings at practically every county courthouse, culminated 
in the two state educational conventions at Richmond in 
1 84 1 and 1845. Two permissive acts for the establishment of 
common schools, passed March 5, 1846, came out of this enthu- 
siasm, and with them ante-bellum effort for centralized state 
school control may be said to have reached its highest point. 
Before proceeding to these conventions, it is interesting to 
note just what story the school statistics of 1840 told of the 
two great divisions of the state: u 

I. Total School Population — 276,673 







East 




West 






Male Female 


Male 


Female 




Children from 5 to 10 yrs. 


25,322 24,733 


28,531 


27,53i 




Children from 10 to 15 yrs. 


22,051 21 


,639 


23,77i 


22,357 




Children from 15 to 20 yrs. 

Total 


18,907 21 


,400 


19,356 
71,658 


21,075 




66,280 67 


.772 


70,963 




Schools 






East 


West 


I. 


Number of academies and grammar schools 




323 


59 


2. 


Number of primary and common schools 




978 


583 


3- 


Attendance in academies, etc 






8,764 


2,319 


4. 


Attendance in primaries, etc. 






20,763 


14,568 


5- 


Number over 20 who cannot read and write 




29,808 


28,924 


6. 


Number of " public charges " i 


at school 




6,070 


3,72i 



This gave Virginia 58,732 adult illiterates, about one in 
thirteen, evenly divided between the two great sections. 
New Jersey, Kentucky, and Alabama ranked above Virginia 
in percentage of illiteracy. North Carolina, with a district 
system just inaugurated, recorded one fourth of her entire 
adult population unlettered. Ohio and New York had 35,000 
illiterates, Kentucky, 40,000, while in Massachusetts there 
were 4500 and in Connecticut only 526. 

No one suggested, apparently, the interesting correlation 
between the thickly populated industrial states of many 
towns and villages such as Connecticut and Massachusetts 
with their low illiteracy rate, and the high illiteracy rate of the 
agricultural states of Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, 

11 House Journal, 1841, Second Auditor's Report, Supplementary Document. 



Virginia Common School Revival 133 

Alabama, etc. Of the 395,037 free adult males, white and 
colored in Virginia, occupations were distributed as follows: 

Agriculture 318,771 or 80 per cent 

Manufactory and trades 54,147 or 13 per cent 

Learned professions 3,866 or 1 per cent 

In the enthusiasm for education, no apology was offered on 
the basis of these facts, nor was Virginia popularly accredited 
with 1500 primary and common schools and 400 academies 
and grammar schools in a white population of less than 740,000, 
the greater part of which lived in the open country. On the 
other hand, the convention orators saw in the census of 1840 
"sl picture startling and frightful . . . which exposes our 
ignorance in strong and humiliating contrast with that of the 
other states of the confederacy." 12 

The census figures are not, however, to be taken too seriously 
as an arraignment in themselves of the primary school system; 
though they may be accepted as the index of a deplorable 
apathy. The school situation at that time was singularly like 
that which the state faced at the opening of the twentieth 
century, after thirty years under the Act of 1870. In 1900 
there were only 6429 public school buildings for white children 
within the area of the present state of Virginia, in spite of the 
growth of towns and a great increase in population. 13 In the 
same year there were 397,162 white children of school age, 
241,696 of whom were enrolled and only 141,382 of whom 
were in average daily attendance. 14 As late as 19 10 only sixty- 
eight per cent of the white children were reported in school. 15 
After forty years of the present public free school system, 
seventy years after this census, the state superintendent con- 
fessed that twenty-three per cent of the total adult population 
could not read or write. In that year there were 232,911 illit- 
erates, 83,961 of whom were native whites. 16 In the state con- 
vention of 1902 the chairman of the committee on schools was 
forced to admit that there were thousands of white children in 
the state yet without school facilities. 17 It has taken a highly 

12 Memorial, Richmond- Educational Convention, Richmond Enquirer, Nov. 
22, 1842. 

13 Proceedings, Constitutional Convention, 1902, 1667, 1673; in i860 there were 
3896 schoolhouses in both states. 

14 Ibid. 15 U. S. Census, 1910, Virginia. 16 Ibid. 
17 Proceedings, Constitutional Convention, 1902, 1222. 



134 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

centralized state department of education with a corps of in- 
spectors and campaign speakers, the persistent effort of such 
organizations as the Virginia Cooperative Educational Associa- 
tion and the local Citizens' Leagues, more than $80,000 ex- 
pended in public school wagons, and liberal state appropriation 
to carry the school to the people and reduce the illiteracy rate 
below that of 1840. 

The superintendent of the Literary Fund was conscious of 
the need of public interest in education, of taxation for schools, 
and of amendments to the existing laws; but as he said in 
1839, to his commissioners just before the census was made 
public, " A dispassionate mind cannot but see that much good 
has been accomplished, and diligently carried into execution. 
The system cannot fail to greatly advance the interests of the 
whole community." To him there was value, both to the rich 
and to the poor, in the state's having first given its exclusive 
attention to the education of an otherwise neglected class: 

"It is a good that no other system has, that the Poor are watched over 
with parental care. . . . When the commissioners generally visit and in- 
spect the schools . . . the public mind will be fully prepared for the in- 
troduction and competent support of a more perfect and general system 
of education. . . . Until then, let us push that now in existence to the 
highest degree of perfection and get all the good out of it." 18 

Governor Gilmer, believing the primary schools are gradually 
improving, advocates in his message of 1840 an extension of 
the present system until the necessity of education is more 
generally felt: 

"The system will, with the help of private means, lead to schools ac- 
cessible to all. ... It is the fashion to deride our common schools without 
examining them. . . . The most ludicrous exaggerations have been pub- 
lished in other states through gross ignorance and injustice." 19 

The Richmond Whig, on the other hand, comments caus- 
tically on Brown's report of 1839, in which he showed by 
examples from the four sections that illiteracy was well dis- 
tributed through the state: Jefferson (west), 291 adult il- 
literates; Gloucester (east), 600; Albemarle (central), 600; 
and Rockingham (Valley), 1390, with 5000 between 14 and 20 
years unable to read and write! 

18 House Journal, 1839, Second Auditor's Report. 

19 House Journal, 1840, 7. 



Virginia Common School Revival 135 

"Brown is wedded to the present system because it is cheap. . . . The 
greatest outlay may be the truest economy and that Legislature would 
achieve immortal honor which would boldly mortgage the revenues of the 
state for fifty years to come, if nothing less would do it, for the education 
of the Children of the Commonwealth. It is almost useless to provide 
a better plan until the people or the Legislature have agreed to supply 
the all-important prerequisite, a large sum of money. When the public 
mind shall be convinced of the great importance of diffusing light . . . the 
tax . . . will be cheerfully incurred. Of 47,000 poor children only 26,000 
are sent to school at all and these often on an average of only 64 days 



The Abingdon Virginian, another Whig organ, speaking of 
school legislation in its issue of November 21, 1840, says: 

"We should like to know what has heretofore been attempted by the 
legislature of 1838-9 . . . what was the cause of the failure of legislative 
action; and then we want our whole Legislature if they manifest any 
tardiness of action or seem to require it, lashed up by the Press and the 
People to efficient action. Let us not permit Federal politics to absorb 
our attention to the exclusion of internal improvement and education." 

Thomas Ritchie heartily indorsed this editorial of a political 
opponent in the southwest, stating that it had been his in- 
tention to greet the legislature on its first day with an article 
on primary schools. When the Assembly convened, Ritchie 
had placed in the lobby of the capitol a district school library 
cabinet of one hundred volumes — a sample, he said of the 
10,000 school libraries in the schools of New York State, 
and begged that the legislature devise a plan for the circula- 
tion of these economical libraries among the primary schools 
and the people of Virginia. 21 Mr. Goode's motion in the 
House, February 11, 1841, to dissolve the Literary Fund and 
the Fund for Internal Improvement provoked Thomas Ritchie 
to say: 

"To put out the two great eyes of the state! What! at the very 
moment we are reproached for the ignorance of our people, when the cant 
is raised about the Suabian Dutch . . . when every Patriot recognizes 
the sacred maxim that a Free People must be enlightened, to come for- 
ward and lay their unhallowed hands upon the Literary Fund, the only 
means we have of educating the poor! . . . We protest against it. If you 
want money . . . trust your generous constituents." 22 

20 The Richmond Whig, March, 1841. 

21 Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 4, 1840. The letter from Wheeling just quoted 
protested against Mr. Ritchie's new enthusiasm lest it divert legislative attention 
and appropriation from the larger problem of free schools. 

22 Ibid., Editorial, Feb. 13, 1841. 



136 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

The General Assembly, 1 840-1, having failed to agree on 
a school system best adapted to the needs of the state, a 
bill authorizing a commission to devise such a plan for the 
legislature was proposed. This proposal drew out heated 
discussion. Mr. Burwell, of Bedford, opposed delegating 
legislative functions "to an irresponsible body which might 
attempt to press through a mere transcript from a system of 
some other state and utterly unsuited to the exigencies of the 
state of Virginia." In this connection he advised caution 
and protested that the present system of the state was mis- 
understood by some and deliberately misrepresented by many. 

"The very sparseness of our population would show sufficiently that 
no system of general taxation for popular education as practised in the 
Northern states would be applicable here. . . . While the proportion 
the population of Maine or Massachusetts bears to the area is 75 to 81 
per square mile, in West Virginia it is 8 and in Eastern Virginia it is about 
11, thus showing that any general system must be unequal in its benefits 
and operations. 

"The District System (1829) has been in optional operation for ten 
years and yet there are at present but four or rive counties in which 
the system is in operation. Some counties were laid off into districts 
several years ago, but the system has been abandoned and the school- 
houses have rotted down . . . thus showing that we are not prepared 
for the adoption of some of the most advantageous peculiarities of the 
plans of education in operation elsewhere. We risked a great deal in 
allowing this matter to get away from the House." 23 

Mr. Lee, of Harrison County, opposed Mr. Burwell, be- 
lieving the present system only valuable for a "perpetuation 
of ignorance," and trusted that the time had arrived for more 
judicious expenditure of money for education. "Virginia in 
1818, before this vaunted Common School System," he said, 
"had less ignorance than in 1840." He called upon "Friends 
of Education in the House to sustain the bill and come forward 
for the education of the People." 24 Such a bill was enacted 
March 8, 1841, authorizing the governor to select three suit- 
able persons to "devise and report to the next legislature 
some school system adapted to the condition of this state." 
From the Literary Fund one hundred dollars was offered for 
the best plan of popular education submitted for the con- 
sideration of this committee. 

In the following session, after careful study of "the plans 

23 Richmond Enquirer, March 9, 1841, Report of Proceedings of Virginia As- 
sembly. 24 Ibid. 



Virginia Common School Revival 137 

of the Richmond and Clarksburg conventions, many private 
suggestions, and the laws and regulations of Northern and 
Eastern states," this committee returned its report. Its 
essential recommendations were: 

1. A district system similar to that provided under the Act 
of 1829, but supported by public taxation and the county 
quota of the Literary Fund and under state management. 

2. In addition to the school commissioners' acting as a 
county board of education, every district should be "under 
the immediate control and direction of three trustees," two 
appointed by the tax-payers and one by the board of com- 
missioners. These trustees should appoint teachers approved 
and certificated by the commissioners, visit their school once a 
month, examine the scholars, and see that children are sent 
regularly to school. They should build and furnish their 
district schoolhouse, etc. 

3. "The greatest obstacle to education in Virginia is the 
want of well-educated and moral teachers," hence men should 
be encouraged to take up a study of the art of teaching. 

4. A state superintendent, who should give "his whole 
time to the duties of his office," visit the counties, disseminate 
information on education as well as the art of teaching, 
regulate the system, construe the law, recommend improve- 
ments on the prevailing system and, in fact, "exert his talents 
in infusing amongst the people an ardent thirst for knowledge 
and incite them to the pursuit and attainment of that object." 25 

That this report failed to meet the demands of all sections, 
is seen in the proposal two years later of Samuel C. Anderson 
of Prince Edward County that the governor be requested to 
invite a "committee of the faculty of the University of Vir- 
ginia, the presidents of the several colleges and . . . other 
scientific and literary men ... to collect and prepare all the 
material which may be necessary to improve the highest 
systems of education in the state as well as the elementary 
schools and to report the result ... to the next legislature 
of the General Assembly." 26 

25 House Journal, 1841-2, Document No. 53. The V. M. I. was subsidized at 
this time at the suggestion of this committee; vide pp. 123, 194, supra. 

26 Ibid., 1843-4. This proposal was not realized; but such a commission 
created in 1910 to unify the educational interests of the state was similarly made 
up and aimed to accomplish much the same object as that set forth here. 



138 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

The thinking people, if not the masses, were aroused to the 
necessity of better schools. Every conceivable device was 
resorted to to bring the people together on a common plan 
of administration and support. As a result of the failures 
of the preceding legislatures and stimulated by campaigns in 
the Northern states and by the census report, newspaper and 
lyceum discussions, a series of county, sectional, and state 
conventions were held. The movement began with the 
northwest counties at Clarksburg on September 9, 1841. 
Judge E. S. Duncan sent a letter to this convention and the 
Reverend Dr. Alexander Campbell made the chief address. 
An outline for a district free school system, previously pre- 
pared by President Henry A. Ruffner of Washington College 
for the Kanawha Lyceum, was presented. This plan was to 
play a large part in subsequent history. " A Project for Dis- 
trict Schools" which merits study, was submitted by John 
D. D. Rossett, of Jackson County. The old resentment of 
the West against the East for its monopoly of internal im- 
provement and for its policy toward the University of Virginia 
marked the convention. Judge Duncan, in his letter, said: 

"The Literary Fund has utterly failed to accomplish the object of its 
creation. Appropriations have been frittered away on an institution 
whose tendencies are essentially for the very rich, while the Literary Fund 
primary schools are exclusively intended for the very poor. The men 
of small fortunes are left to their own means. . . . The bone and muscle 
of the state, the men who pay the taxes, are left out. The great body of 
the people of Virginia and the entire body in the Northwest are deprived of 
all participation in the Literary Fund. They cannot send their children 
to the University and they are prohibited if they would from joining in 
the scramble for the annual donation for primary schools." 

President RufTner's comments are prefaced with the same 
sentiment: 

"Had our state rulers taken the $800,000 spent on the University and 
established a system of well-regulated academies they could then have 
gone on to build upwards toward a university at a future day. The pres- 
ent University has, for want of such a foundation, to take in raw boys 
that would profit more at a good grammar school or academy. It is a bad 
way, to put a fine curved and gilded top to a house with a foundation of 
dirt and walls of rough logs badly put together. All we can do now is 
to endeavour to mend the foundation and walls which could have been 
more easily done if the roof had not cost so much." . . . 

"Good government is necessary to the protection of all our property 
and rights and good government cannot be secured in a democracy where 
the people are badly educated and where great numbers vote at elections." 



Virginia Common School Revival 139 

The convention committee, appointed to prepare a report, 
recommended: (1) A district school system requiring the 
erection of suitable schoolhouses in central, healthful, and 
pleasant localities; (2) a local school tax to supplement state 
appropriation; (3) the creation of the office of state super- 
intendent of common schools and county superintendents 
subordinate to him; (4) schools free to all white children, 
"for it would destroy the success of the whole system to allow 
any distinction between rich and poor"; (5) the establishment 
of really efficient schools. " If they are not good enough for 
the rich they will not be fit for the poor"; (6) the publication 
of a common school journal "to give the lives, systems and 
criticism of Pestalozzi, Basedow, Rochow, Fellenburg, etc."; 
(7) division inspectors "to arouse enthusiasm and overcome 
inefficiency in spending public money" 27 or "we will repeat 
the waste in Ireland where money is appropriated for educa- 
tion and never spent on it." 

Normal schools, it was held, were the first step toward the 
perfection of a school system; "any system of common schools 
without this necessary foundation cannot succeed. The 
Prussian system is best, though despotic, because for half a 
century (1790) Prussia has trained teachers." 28 In arguing 
for the extension of female education the report says: 

"Let all asylums for female children be converted into institutes for 
the education of female teachers where the children may form a model 
school. Nature has placed the tender years of infancy under the guardian- 
ship of the female mind and nature is violated when the law is reversed." 

Lyceums and Mechanics' Institutes, with "social libraries" 
and discussion groups, are suggested. 29 Perhaps the most 
striking portion of the report and one frequently reiterated 
in spirit within the past decade or two by the officials of the 
Cooperative Educational Association is the portion dealing 
with schoolhouses: 

"Fine churches, fine railroads . . . and other examples of the impetu- 
osity of our self-interests! while beside the straggling fence that skirts our 

27 A board of such divisional inspectors was created in 1905 to increase popular 
interest in public school improvement, but was abolished in 1910. 

28 The normal schools of Austria and Bavaria are mentioned. France is ac- 
credited with forty teacher-training schools and New York State with sixteen. 
Vide also preceding chapter on teachers, p. 118. 

29 Cf. the rural school community center work of the present Virginia Co- 
operative Educational Association. 



140 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

way still stands that wretched mockery of all decency and comfort, half 
church and half schoolhouse but unfit for either. We build gorgeous 
houses to sit in in solemn mockery of judgment upon ignorant and un- 
fortunate victims whose criminal fate might have been evaded but for the 
neglect of society and the expenditure of our public monies in the wrong 
direction. 

"Consumption, curvature of the spine, deranged vision and other 
horrible consequences are to be traced to mismanaged and illy constructed 
schoolhouses. If these things are not traceable to every part of Virginia 
it is because we have not enough proficiency in any system to develop 
its good and bad qualities." 

The report closes with the generalization: 

"Our safety . . . lies in the elevation of the individual ... in the re- 
sponsibility of the individual. . . . Republican government and moral 
responsibility are coordinate propositions." 

On October 26, 1841, representatives of the counties of 
Augusta, Botetourt, Bath, and Rockbridge, led by James 
McDowell, a delegate from the Clarksburg Convention and 
subsequently governor of the state, met at Lexington under 
the auspices of Washington College. Out of this convention 
came the Ruffner Plan for District Schools. As a plan it 
bears a strong resemblance to our present completed system 
and undoubtedly parts of it were written into the Act of 1870. 
The following is a digest of the Ruffner plan: 30 

I. A District Free School System, supported by a direct 
school tax and the Literary Fund income. This to be effected 
by the division of the counties into districts of certain area. 
The following administrators and officers: A state board of 
education, a state superintendent, four sectional superin- 
tendents or inspectors, county superintendents, three trustees 
for each district, and schoolmasters definitely qualified. 

1. The State Board of Education to be composed of the 
State Superintendent and the four inspectors — a purely 
professional personnel. The State Superintendent, elected by 
the legislature for three years, must be "rarely trained" for 
the supervision and administration of the system, and would 
be the chief executive officer. 

2. The chief functions of the Board of Education to be 

30 House Journal, 1841-2, Document No. 35, Proceedings of Educational Con- 
ventions of the North West, p. 12. Also read by Ruffner before the Kanawha 
Lyceum, in 1840. 



Virginia Common School Revival 141 

(a) to appoint county superintendents. 

(b) to adopt texts for use in the district schools. 

(c) to apportion funds among the counties. 

(d) to frame general school regulations and exercise a general 
supervision over the state. 

3. To the four sectional superintendents, elected by the 
legislature and under the direction of the State Superinten- 
dent, were to be delegated many of the same responsibilities 
of the State Board of (four) Examiners created in 1905 and 
recently abolished. With the exception of the certification 
of teachers — their duties seem identical with those of that 
board. 

4. The schoolmaster to be appointed by the trustees and 
examined by the county superintendent for good character, 
scholarship, aptness to teach, and business ability. 

II. A normal school to be established in every county with 
a practice school for "apprentice teachers." 

III. The establishment of a library in each school. 

The minutes of the Lexington Convention and the details 
>f^the Ruffner plan were given wide publicity by the press. 
Several newspapers published the resolutions of the convention 
and asked for signatures of indorsement. The Lynchburg 
Republican " makes no apology for so many articles on 'Edu- 
cation,' for the subject must be kept constantly before the 
people of Virginia till they are brought to act upon it." A 
meeting of the Society of Alumni of Hampden-Sidney College, 
October 8, 1841, prayed for legislative encouragement of the 
intermediate schools, and urged a great state educational 
convention at Richmond. Local meetings were held through- 
out the state to elect delegates to this convention. The first 
county meeting was, it seems, held in Prince Edward, Octo- 
ber 18, 1 84 1, and the Enquirer published the resolutions of this 
meeting with the request that the state press copy. 31 The sub- 
ject of free schools was brought before a Good Roads conven- 
tion at Chris tiansburg, October 25, 1841, and that convention 
passed a strong resolution calling for school legislation. 32 Meet- 
ings for the election of delegates to the approaching convention 
and urging immediate legislation for schools were also held in 

31 Richmond Enquirer, Nov. 2, 1841. 32 Ibid., Nov. 5, 1841. 



142 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Kanawha County, Oct. 14; Lunenburg County, Nov. 8; Meck- 
lenburg County, Nov. 22; King and Queen County, Nov. 26; 
Hampton and Amherst County, Nov. 27; Halifax County, 
Nov. 30; Sussex County, Dec. 2; Campbell County, Lynch- 
burg and Petersburg, Dec. 3; Williamsburg, Dec. 6; Henrico 
County, Dec. 11; Harrison County, Dec. 11; New Kent, 
Middlesex County, etc. 33 Fredericksburg, Dec. 3, elected 
James M. Garnett delegate. In Richmond the meeting to 
elect delegates was evidently a municipal affair, for the mayor 
of the city was chairman and Thomas Ritchie secretary. 

Of the extreme eastern counties, Middlesex was reported as 
" deeply interested in the cause of education." King and Queen 
"feels a deep interest in education and will use all means to 
advance it in the state." New Kent County thinks "some 
efficient system of primary education, which will reach every 
class of the community, is essentially necessary to the preser- 
vation of our republican institutions; and thanks its former 
representative, Clayton G. Coleman, "for his strenuous exer- 
tions in the cause of education in the General Assembly of Vir- 
ginia." 34 On November 18, Albemarle County, in a stormy 
local convention, in which the sentiment was to concentrate on 
the improvement of "the radically defective" primary system, 
adopted the resolution "that to provide the means of elemen- 
tary instruction for all the youth of a state is one of the first 
duties of its government." 35 

Just on the eve of the great state convention an interesting 
newspaper controversy was carried on by "Virginian," and 
"E." 36 "Virginian" wished it to be understood that the pur- 
pose of the approaching convention "is not to build up the 
old system and perfect colleges and academies but to propose 
a new system that will work." He says: 

"Under the old system, we still have 58,000 illiterate adults fitted 
only to be hewers of wood, etc. ... It is clearly our duty to establish 
a better system, but not by developing colleges and academies with the 
Literary Fund, against which the legislature of 181 1 solemnly protested. 

33 Notices of most of these meetings, with their resolutions, Richmond En- 
quirer, Oct. to Dec, 1841. Vide Rockbridge, Memorial, Ohio County petition, etc., 
House Journal, 1840-1, Document No. 40, Second Auditor's Report. 

34 Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 9, 1841. 

35 Ibid., Dec. 9, 1841. This convention resulted in a county system of free schools. 

36 It is difficult to determine the identities of these correspondents. 



Virginia Common School Revival 143 

These would be neither accessible to nor attended by either the poor or 
the great middle class; ... for where [state] money goes to higher educa- 
tion, free schools languish. . . . Moreover, the sparseness of population 
is ... no reason why Virginia should go against the experience of the 
whole county ... in failing to adopt a district organization, for even 
North Carolina has adopted such a system." 37 [He admits that in New 
York State — always the example — there are thirty-four people to the 
square mile while Virginia averages only eleven.] 

"E" protests that the eastern sentiment is with the claims 
of the colleges, academies and intermediate schools as a means 
of promoting education generally. To him the convention 
will be at liberty to propose "on mature deliberation such a 
system as will be best calculated to secure the state from an 
increase of the vast amount of ignorance which now prevails." 
He continues: 

"But the p-o-o-r! 'Virginian' talks as if Virginia were a great poor- 
house and as if no other portion of the community deserves a moment's 
consideration. To read, write and cypher is quite sufficient for all the 
rest. . . . This is an aristocratic plan — a plan which the good sense of 
the people of Virginia has repudiated and will always repudiate. I pro- 
test against confounding the independent working man and the one and 
two hogshead men with the poor in any system devised. . . . We must 
have good primary schools but we must foster colleges, academies and an 
university as well." 38 [This — to attain a general system of schools — was 
the program of the East.] 

It was to accomplish this broader project that the delegates 
assembled in Richmond, December 9, 1841. The most dis- 
tinguished and representative men of eastern Virginia were 
members of this body. 39 Their memorial to the legislature 
embraced recommendations regarding all types of schools in 
the state, with a special emphasis on the lower schools. The 
primary school report was prepared by Thomas Ritchie, 
R. G. Scott and B. M. Smith. 39a This committee "recommends 
to the people of Virginia" for their "solemn consideration" 
the subject of general primary instruction: 

37 Richmond Enquirer, Nov. 26. 1841. 

zs Ibid., Dec. 31, 1841. 

39 The officers of this convention signing the memorial were: James M. Garnett, 
president; Edward Watts, vice-president; Robert W. Carter, John W. Peyton, 
Nathaniel Venable, secretaries; Richard Foler, Edward G. Baldwin, Judge John 
B. Clapton, Briscoe G. Baldwin, Thomas Ritchie, Robert G. Scott, and Thomas 
Mitch. 

39 a For the text of this report addressed a year later " To the People of Virginia," 
vide Richmond Enquirer, November 22, 1842. 



144 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

"We solicit not your sympathies in behalf of the poor . . . nor wish 
to excite in your minds any prejudice against the rich. We address our- 
selves to all in behalf of all. . . . One county of Virginia, and that one 
of the most intelligent and wealthy, exceeds by one-half the whole number 
in a like state of ignorance in Connecticut. ... In the above state the 
working classes are all included while in Virginia our largest class of work- 
ing operatives — nearly one half the entire population — is excluded. . . . 
We confess the present primary system has done some good ... we con- 
fess owing to sparseness of population ... an effective system cannot 
be instantaneously introduced . . . but do these present any reason why 
we should not energetically attempt ... a more efficient system?" 

The reasons given by the report for the failure of the pri- 
mary system begin, of course, with the blight of the charity 
feature. 

"Education is represented as a gratuity and men are not accustomed 
much to value what is cheap. ... As only the poor and ignorant are 
interested in the schools that do take the indigent children they must be 
badly conducted. . . . This imperfect system has failed also for want 
of systematic superintendence, and careful selection of teachers by com- 
petent persons." 

The committee suggested the following "principles [as] 
more consistent with reason, — better adapted to our wants 
and therefore better calculated to succeed": 

I. "That primary schools, accessible without fee to every 
white child of proper age, ought to be maintained at all prac- 
ticable points at public charge." . . . 

II. "That to procure competent teachers is indispensable 
and to provide instruction and preparation for that office 
necessary. . . . No pecuniary expense, no laborious exami- 
nation, should outweigh the importance of the preparation 
of teachers, . . . instructors trained among us, accustomed 
to our habits, informed in regard to our institutions, sym- 
pathizing with the people." 

III. "That vigilant and constant supervision of the schools 
is absolutely necessary to maintain the vigor of any system. 
. . . The selection of teachers depends on the superintendence 
of the system." 

IV. " That the principle [of taxation] is adopted as the only 
practicable one, because primary education, being a common 
benefit, ought to constitute a common burden and in a popu- 
lation as sparse as our own ... in many parts of the state, 
the aid of all citizens must be called into requisition or else 



Virginia Common School Revival 145 

the local burden would become so oppressive as to endanger 
its success. . . . The schools supported by public tax, vol- 
untarily imposed by the people of each county, could be thus 
regulated by public authority. . . . All countries in Europe 
and America relying on private enterprise or government 
alone have signally failed in imparting education to the 
people." 

The committee's plan presupposed small, permanent school 
districts, commissioned with power to determine the amount 
of levy from a property and poll tax imposed by the county 
court. No district should share in the state funds till it had 
erected a schoolhouse and until "a school kept by a qualified 
teacher" had been open four months. County commissioners 
should examine teachers and determine the course of study 
which must embrace " reading correctly, writing well, arith- 
metic practically applied," besides English grammar, general, 
United States and Virginia history, United States and Vir- 
ginia constitutions and the general elements of physical 
science. 

It was shown that the existing primary system costs $950,000 
and yet " 22,000 poor children and an indefinite number of 
thousands who are not poor do not attend school at all"; 
and those who do, must attend "too often in miserable huts 
scarcely more comfortable than those you provide for your 
cattle." It was proposed to place a schoolhouse and compe- 
tent teacher within reach of " every child of almost every white 
citizen." 40 The expense of such a competent system would 
exceed the cost of the present u do-as-you please" scheme by 
only seven thousand dollars; four thousand dollars of which 
would go to the salary and expenses of "an eminent man," 
the general state superintendent, who should "address the 
people . . . enlist by eloquent appeals the exertions of in- 
dividuals in behalf of public education . . . and contributions 
from their purses; . . . aid in the raising of county levies, 
etc." Upon the character of this leadership would rest the 
success of the schools. To gain efficiency, the number of 

40 The state comprised 64,000 square miles. A school for each 5i miles 
square made 2133 districts, plus 167 for towns. 



146 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

teachers was to be reduced nearly one third and their sala- 
ries increased $5o. 41 

As might be expected, the financial basis of the new plan 
was attacked. Caspar Thiel, of Lancaster, Ohio, in writing 
Mr. Ritchie, soon after the publication of this primary school 
report in the Enquirer, is "gratified that Virginia recognizes 
education as a right . . . and an object of the care and pro- 
tection of government." But he voices the reaction within 
the state when he points out the " heavy items" of expense 
in the $140,000 that must go to sheriffs and $9500 for 
treasurers' collections alone. He would do away with such 
expensive and undemocratic officers and let the teachers 
receive their salaries directly from the tax-payers. 42 

Tucker Coles, of Albemarle County, also attempts to show 
the impracticability of the conventions' views. In that county, 
which received only $1000 from the Literary Fund, it would 
be necessary to raise between $10,000 and $15,000 by tax or 
contribution to build forty or fifty schoolhouses. And yet, 
because of the frequency of waste lands and the size of estates, 
free schools would not be within reach of thousands who must 
nevertheless pay for them. "At present," he says, "the 
want of instruction for these children proceeds more from the 
want of necessary primary schools than from any deficiency 

41 In detail, the cost was given as: 

3243 teachers at $250 each $810,750 

Fuel for 3243 schools at $10 each 32,000 

Books and stationary for 100,000 children at $1 each 100,000 

Interest on cost of 3,243 schoolhouses at $50 each 9,729 

Commission of 1% on $72,000 to treasurers of school com- 



missioners 

Salaries of clerks of commissioners at $25 for 120 counties. . . . 3<°°° 

$956,199 
Cost of proposed public school system as compared to the old : 

2300 teachers at $300 each $690,000 

Superintendent of instruction 4-°°° 

Expense of county commissioners at meetings of Board at $10 

each 2 3, ooc 

Fuel for 2300 school at $10 each 23,000 

Books, etc., for 135,000 at $1 each 135.000 

Interest on cost of 2300 schoolhouses at $200 27,000 

Commission of sheriffs for collection, say at 5 % on Soo,coo 40,000 

Commission of county treasurers on, say $950,000 9>5°° 

Repairs of schoolhouses at $50 each 1 1,500 

$963,000 
*- Richmond Enquirer, Dec. 8. 1842. 



Virginia Common School Revival 147 

of means." To Mr. Coles, any attempt to divide counties 
into small districts would fail. He preferred a middle ground, 
large districts with the "privilege of locating at pleasure" 
schoolhouses to suit the convenience of those interested. 43 
This distribution, it will be recalled, was advocated by the 
commission of 1841 appointed by the governor to devise a 
school system. The commission also suggested the large 
district plan upon which the post-bellum system went into 
operation — a subdivision of the county rather than an in- 
dependent township unit. 

The Memorial of the Richmond Convention was submitted 
to the legislature on February 21, by Mr. W. C. Rives, who 
had championed state primary schools twenty-five years be- 
fore. He delivered "a strong, eloquent and thrilling speech 
in the legislature" on behalf of it. 44 A bill embracing its 
main features was successfully fathered by Mr. Thomas of 
Fairfax, and passed the House on March 17 by "a triumphant 
majority." 45 "It was adopted with a strong voice, c God 
speed it,'" the Enquirer fervently records. On March 22, 
however, the Enquirer regrets to state that "the school bill 
has been thrown overboard in the Senate." The motion to 
postpone it indefinitely was rejected by a tie vote but the 
attempt to amend it and pass it in an amended form failed 
and the bill was rejected. Thus the high hopes of the cam- 
paign leaders of 1838-41 failed of consummation during this 
legislature. "But," Father Ritchie adds, "there is a time 
for all things, we will keep up the ball in the course of the 
year." 46 

Several months later "A True Friend of Popular Educa- 
tion" addresses the following 

"To the People of Virginia: After the zealous efforts . . . which 
resulted in an Educational Convention and a memorial to our Legislature 
that we all hoped — alas, how vainly — would produce some law on the 
subject. ... I cannot believe that your zeal has been entirely extinguished 
by this utter disregard of it on the part of your representatives. It is 
true that a majority of the House did pass a bill after a delay of nearly 
three months, spent it -would be difficult to say how. . . . This was re- 
jected very unceremoniously by the Senate. But what kind of bill was it? 
. . . Not one of its provisions was to take effect for twelve months and thus 
more than another precious year to the youth of Virginia was unneces- 

43 Ibid., Feb. 24, 1842. « j^id., Mar, 17, 1842. 

44 Ibid., Feb. 22, 1842. « Ibid., Mar. 22, 1842. 



148 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

sarily lost in the attempt to do what might again fail. . . . Many of the 
Assembly were so much afraid of doing what they were especially dele- 
gated to do as to shift from themselves the labor and responsibility of 
doing it whenever they could find a plausible pretext for their acting. . . . 
That the failure of this Legislature to do anything for Popular Education 
is not the first is certain by several. Now, therefore, it rests with you 
to determine how much longer you will submit to this continued neglect 
of the most momentous by far of all our public concerns. Are you content 
... or will you tell them in language not to be misunderstood or evaded 
that something must be done! What is to hinder us from holding meet- 
ings in every county to instruct them ... to pass either the bill of last 
session or some other! ... for poor Virginia is suffering most deeply for 
want of that bread of life which alone can restore her to vigorous moral 
health." 47 

" Lancaster," writing to Governor McDowell in the En- 
quirer, Jan. 24, 1843, comments: 

"The first talent of the country is demanded to explain civil rights, 
but who writes essays on primary education? . . . The almost total neglect 
with which such efforts are passed by discourages the writer and he flags 
in his undertaking. To the surprise and pleasure of many, a very respect- 
able number of citizens assembled in Richmond last winter to consider 
the interest of education but how were the efforts of this body seconded 
by the people and their legislature? With few exceptions, members 
of the House and Senate seemed hardly aware of the convention and when 
its deliberations were laid before them, after its passage in the lower house, 
it failed in the Senate and for one year more the people have slumbered. . . . 
With all our boasted Republicanism we are in this matter more clearly 
ruled by an aristocracy than any country on earth, England excepted." 

In 1843 Governor James M. McDowell submits with his 
annual message a paper by Superintendent Francis H. Smith 
of the Virginia Military Institute on the establishment of 
common schools, and, in a lengthy argument for it, says: 

"If sixty days' tuition to one half of the indigent children of the state 
is the grand result which our present system is able to accomplish after 
so many years of persevering effort to enlarge and perfect its capacity, it 
is little more than a costly and delusive nullity which ought to be abolished 
and another and better one established in its place." 

The agitation grew apace, and in December 18, 1845, the 
second State Educational Convention met in the hall of the 
House of Delegates during the session of the Assembly. 48 

47 Richmond Enquirer, July 5, 1842. 

48 The day before this convention met, representatives of the colleges held ses- 
sions with Landon C. Garland of Randolph-Macon as president. The first College 
Convention was held in Richmond at the Exchange Hotel, January 4, 1844, with 
six colleges, including the University and the Medical College represented. 



Virginia Common School Revival 149 

One hundred and thirteen delegates, representing fifty-one 
counties, were present. Less than one third of these delegates 
were from the present state of West Virginia. The discussions 
were directed by Governor James McDowell, as president of 
the convention; Judge J. T. Lomax, Judge E. S. Drincall, 
T. J. Randolph, Spicer Patrick, A. T. Caperton, W. H. Mac- 
Farland, J. H. Carson and Samuel Watts were made vice- 
presidents, while J. S. Gallagher and R. B. Gooch became 
convention secretaries. These names and the names of 
county delegates are the best evidence that public education 
was demanding the interest of the most prominent of the 
eastern Virginia families. As a preparation for this meet- 
ing certain individuals had evidently written to a large group 
of American educational leaders for guidance, as letters were 
read from Howard Meeks, educational agent for Maryland, 
C. List, of Pennsylvania, the Superintendent of New York 
State, Horace Mann, of Massachusetts, and L. A. Jewett, 
Col. F. H. Smith, and P. V. Daniel, Jr., of Virginia. Horace 
Mann mentions the receipt of a letter from several Virginia 
gentlemen. The substance of Mann's letter to Secretary 
Gooch is given herewith: He urged state rather than local 
taxation for schools. "If left to the counties, those needing 
it most would be the last to levy; how then will they ever 
move?" He favored a district system of schools that there 
might be no discrimination in the division of funds. Re- 
garding the relative importance of the lower and higher school 
he pointedly said: "Heat ascends — it will warm upwards 
but not downwards." He stressed the need of a state agent 
to arouse enthusiasm and organize the work. He advised 
a journal of education. He commented on the poor sup- 
port he received in Massachusetts, calling it a " labor of love." 
Finally he urged upon Mr. Gooch the importance of teachers' 
institutes. 

Mr. Stringer, one of the delegates on the floor of the con- 
vention, insisted that its main object and business was "to 
recommend to the legislature and people a more enlarged, 
energetic and liberal system of primary schools," although 
it had a lively interest in the University and all the colleges 
of the state. The main features of this convention's efforts 
were the appointment of the following gentlemen as a Central 



150 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Committee of Education: A. Stevenson, 49 H. I. Brooke, 49 
C. F. Osborne, T. H. Ellis, S. Maupin, 49 W. S. Plumer, 49 
R. T. Daniel, W. H. MacFarland, James Lyons, P. V. Daniel, 
R. B. Gooch, 49 Geo. W. Munford, H. W. Moncure, the duties 
of which committee were, in lieu of a state department of 
education, to watch over and promote the new system pro- 
posed; collect and diffuse information on the subject of 
popular education; and help in the establishing of " Associa- 
tions of the Friends of Education" in the towns and counties 
of the state. The Central Committee implies a volunteer 
state board of education to be associated with the University 
to excite and preserve the interest of the people in the cause 
of popular education; while the state Associations of Friends 
of Education may be regarded as the forerunners of the present 
Cooperative Educational Association. Their purpose was to 
effect a permanent state organization of the friends of edu- 
cation and the establishment of local organizations throughout 
the state "to protect the interests and promote the success 
of the state system." 

Perhaps for this study the most important features of the 
convention were the majority and the minority reports of the 
committee on primary schools, differing radically in certain 
administrative features, particularly the question of school 
districts. The majority agreed "that the general system of 
education in the primary schools now supported by the 
Literary Fund contains the elements of the only system that 
is suited to the present finances and public temper of the 
commonwealth." But the state should empower each county 
to adopt such a system of schools as the majority of voters 
prefer. Among other suggestions were those of the employ- 
ment of speakers to arouse interest in the state, the publica- 
tion of a cheap monthly school journal, and the levying of a 
small poll tax. Finally, it goes on record against too great 
authoritative interference by the state "with the mode of 
the child's education" in the local communities. 

The minority report is brought in by Samuel M. Janney, 
of Loudoun, and Daniel N. Edgerton, of Ohio County: 50 
"Besides its defective financial aspect we consider the present 

49 From Richmond city. Mr. Daniel represented William and Mary. 

50 House Journal, 1845-6, Document No. 16, 9. 



Virginia Common School Revival 151 

system of Virginia radically defective in several particulars: 
(1) it creates class distinction between rich and poor; (2) it 
makes no provision for the examination of teachers as to their 
moral characters and qualifications; (3) it confers no 
authority on school commissioners for the selection of school 
books; (4) it embraces no provision for the education of 
teachers. In relation to the first of these defects ... it 
impairs their [poor children's] standing among their com- 
rades and then their self-respect and frequently prevents 
their parents from accepting a boon which they think is 
coupled with odious distinctions. The common school system 
in placing all classes upon one level is more conducive to 
equality of feeling . . . and appropriate to our republican 
institution." The minority takes issue with the claim that 
Virginia is too sparsely settled to maintain a single school 
district system and shows that the present Literary Fund 
would suffice if properly managed. 51 The feasibility of the 
district system is elaborately defended. 

Both the majority and minority report bills to the next 
Assembly in accordance with their views and the Committee 
of Schools and Colleges of the 1845-6 session bring in the fol- 
lowing recommendations: "That it is inexpedient to adopt 
the district free school recommended by the Education Con- 
vention and that the present system for the education of the 
indigent should be preserved and amended [but] that any 
county or corporation should be empowered to adopt such 
a system of primary schools as a majority of the voters of 
such counties or corporations may elect; that any tax im- 
posed in addition to the quota of the Literary Fund shall 
be made legally obligatory upon the same." 52 With the 
report of the Committee of Schools and Colleges is a Project 
on the Subject of Primary Schools by Mr. Lyons, of Rich- 
mond, and a Bill for the Establishment of a District School 
System. 

It will suffice to say, in thus outlining Virginia's part in 
the national movement of 1835-60 for democratization of 

51 A county, according to report, with 15 people to a square mile — Virginia 
averaged 12 — had enough for a district four miles square or area of 16 sq. mi. 
15 by 16 = 240 people. Allowing \ of 240 as of school age, we have 60 children, 
about 45 of whom could be expected to come to school, $300 or $12 a pupil. 

52 House Journal, 1845-6. 



152 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

education, that this state did yeoman's service and laid the 
foundations for the accomplishments of 1850-60, 1869 and 
1902. Perhaps in no other state were the "Friends of Educa- 
tion" so energetic or persistent. Certainly in no state was 
more to be overcome. Census revelations of illiteracy stirred 
the thinking people of the state as Horace Mann's campaigns 
had stirred Massachusetts. Although the exposure of igno- 
rance and neglect of the masses stung the pride of Virginia 
and incited governors, college presidents, political leaders, 
and educators from both sides of the mountains to call con- 
ventions and pass resolutions, only permissive school laws 
were or could be adopted. The old primary system came in 
for much abuse. Some wished to abolish it entirely and sub- 
stitute for it a common school plan based on the experience 
of the Northern states; but J. Brown, in charge of the actual 
operation of the Literary Fund since its inception, with others, 
favored the extension of the primary system as the only safe 
method to pursue. 

The Southern Literary Messenger published, as earlier the 
Evangelical and Literary Magazine had done, voluminous 
articles in support of the democratic movement. Meetings 
were held in 1839-41 in numerous places in Tidewater and 
Piedmont, urging the establishment of common schools. The 
legislature of 1838-9 actively debated the matter. Many 
bills were presented and Smith's study of the Prussian state 
schools was reprinted in the proceedings of that year. Even 
prizes were offered by the state for an acceptable plan of 
school administration. The question of Virginia's injustice to 
her western counties was revived. A concentrated movement 
for effective legislation began in several parts of the state, 
culminating in three great common school conventions — 
Clarksburg, now West Virginia, September 9, 1841, Lexing- 
ton, October 26, 1841, and Richmond, December 9, 1841. 
During November preceding the Richmond convention local 
county meetings were held throughout the state for the elec- 
tion of delegates to this convention. The whole people was 
" deeply interested in the cause of education." 

Eastern influence dominated the Richmond meeting. The 
school bill which embodied the report of this convention 
passed the House of Delegates but died in the Senate. On 



Virginia Common School Revival 153 

December 18, 1845, Governor James McDowell, a prominent 
figure at the Clarksburg and Lexington conventions, called 
in convention one hundred and thirteen delegates from fifty- 
one counties to propose new plans for consideration by the 
legislature then in session. Horace Mann was appealed to 
for counsel and contributed a letter of concrete suggestions. 53 
Two reports adopted by this convention were enacted into 
permissive statutes that year. The provisions of these bills 
will be discussed in the succeeding chapter. In addition to 
the actual legislation achieved by this convention, a Central 
Committee of Education, consisting of thirteen prominent men, 
was created to act as a volunteer state department of educa- 
tion and help in organizing local associations to arouse the 
people to the necessity of cooperation and of taxation for 
schools. This group outlined the work finally achieved 
seventy-five years later by the present Cooperative Educa- 
tional Association of Virginia. 

53 This and other letters and addresses are printed in full as part of Superin- 
tendent Brown's Report for 1845, House Journal, 1846-7. 



CHAPTER X 

THE RESULTS OF THE COMMON SCHOOL REVIVAL. ANTE- 
BELLUM FOUNDATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL 
SYSTEM 

The immediate result of the great conventions, particularly 
that of 1845, was the passage of three separate acts attempt- 
ing to satisfy particular sections and interests. These were 
the twin acts of March 5, 1846, — one, the Act to Amend 
the Present Primary System, representing in the main the 
conclusions of the majority report of the 1845 educational 
convention, the other, An Act for the Establishment of a 
District System, embodying the minority report, — and a 
third or Special Act of February 25, 1846, designed for a few 
counties whose representatives were ready to carry the ques- 
tion of taxation immediately to their constituents. 

The first act was largely obligatory on all parts of the state, 
the second largely permissive. All three acts left the matter 
of public taxation for schools wholly to the counties. To 
safeguard property owners, a petition signed by one third of the 
qualified voters of each county was required before a local 
election could be called on the adoption of either of the twin 
acts; two thirds of the voters must approve all tax meas- 
ures at the polls before free schools could become a fact. It 
can be seen that the petition placed an obstacle in the way of 
adopting the tax provisions of the twin acts which only great 
popular enthusiasm could overcome. The Virginia counties 
needed stimulation to effect the radical innovation of public 
taxation and popular cooperation. To place such an ob- 
stacle doomed these acts to failure from their passage. This 
was foreseen ' during that session of the legislature. To an- 
ticipate this defeat by special legislation, the friends of free 
schools succeeded in forcing through the Act of February 25, 
1846, 1 designed to give the eastern counties of Lancaster, 

1 Acts of Assembly, 1845-6, Chapter 42. To be voted upon by the people 
when delegates were elected to the General Assembly without preliminary peti- 
tion of tax-payers. 

154 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 155 

Westmoreland, Richmond, King George, Northumberland, 
Loudoun, Henry, Prince William, York, James City, Fairfax 
and Williamsburg and the present West Virginia counties 
of Kanawha and Brooks, statutory permission to lay a levy 
for the maintenance of a common school system without 
the difficult preliminary step of petition calling such election. 
The effect of this particular act will be seen later in the 
account of Henry County. 

The first of the twin acts of March 5, 1846, "An Act to 
Amend the Present Primary School System," 2 in its obliga- 
tory sections, may be accepted as a great step in the evolution 
of a state public school system. By it Virginia inaugurated 
a system of county superintendents to be elected by the county 
boards of school commissioners. The county superintendent 
was authorized to act as clerk and treasurer of this board and 
enjoined to require strict accounting of finance and school 
attendance from the individual district commissioner. He 
could, moreover, demand from teachers accepting "state 
pupils" information regarding their curriculum and method. 
He was instructed to visit and supervise the schools of the 
county. An allowance of 2§ per cent of all money expended 
for education the previous year was allowed him as compensa- 
tion. 3 The county must be subdivided into districts, the size 
of which should in each case be determined "with due regard 
to population." 4 The trustees, one for each district, would 
together constitute a corporate county board of education. 
Each trustee must provide for the enumeration and registra- 
tion of all "poor" children in his district who under previous 
enactments were entitled to free tuition. 

So much of this act became binding upon all the counties 
alike. The election of superintendents, the accurate report- 
ing, etc., went far toward creating a uniform state system. 
No mention is made of length of term or course of instruction; 
and the system was to continue to depend upon the limited 
revenue of the Literary Fund unless voted an increment by 

2 Ibid., Chapter 40. "An Act to Amend the Present Primary School System." 

3 Vide Report of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1870: "At 
this time in the larger counties, the county Superintendents received as much 
as $25 and the School Commissioner $10 annually." 

4 Bedford County reports, in 1849, that many of its districts were 100 miles 
square. House Journal, 1849-50. 



156 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

two thirds of the tax-payers of the county. To this act the 
friends of a district system were able to add the following 
permissive section: "Be it further provided that if the provi- 
sions of this act shall fail to meet the needs of any counties or 
be disapproved by them . . . one fourth of the legal voters . . . 
may call an election ... on the question of adopting a system 
of district free schools;" — that is, any system that had been 
pro\ided by the state or established in any of the counties 
within the commonwealth. If two thirds of the voters of a 
county decided at the polls to create a tax for free school 
purposes, "it must be binding on all parts of the county 
alike." 

The second of these twin acts of March 5, the "Act for the 
Establishment of a District Public School System," 5 was 
left to the option of the county to accept or reject at the polls. 
The act provided that "all white children, male and female 
residents of the districts, shall be entitled to receive tuition 
at said schools free of charge." Permanent single-school 
districts were to be laid off, a district being defined as a sec- 
tion containing "sufficient children for a school . . . that all 
children may attend daily." A specific course of study (vide 
report of the convention minority, p. 151 supra) is outlined. 
County superintendents are not mentioned, but each district 
must elect three trustees who were to assume very detailed 
responsibilities as to buildings, sites, repairs, furniture, dis- 
cipline of pupils, and financial statements. Such trustees 
must appoint and for cause remove teachers; a fine of ten 
dollars being placed upon all trustees who should be found 
negligent in the examination and certification of teachers. 
State funds could go only to teachers' salaries; each district 
must build or rent and maintain a proper schoolhouse. 

This act, too, has an interesting concluding permissive 
clause similar to the sister act just discussed and reminiscent 
of the Act of 1796. The counties who "may not choose to 
adopt the foregoing provisions for the establishment of free 
schools may call a meeting of their county magistrates to 
determine a proper course." These magistrates were author- 
ized through the county court to divide the county into dis- 
tricts under the Acts of February 25, 1829, and March 30, 

5 Acts of Assembly, 1845-6, Chapter 41. 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 157 

1837, and to lay a district levy to cover the total cost of free 
education of all children "whose parents are willing 17 to send 
them. 6 

The third or Special Act of February 25, 1846, was an 
effort to establish directly by statute a complete district free 
school system in certain counties which had already indicated 
by voluntary citizens' petitions a favorable attitude toward 
local taxation for education. It did not meet with immediate 
favor in the counties involved when the rate of the levy 
became generally known. These counties contained, as was 
to be supposed, two sets of citizens; those opposed to the 
common school principle of taxation and those willing to 
submit to it. Protests or requests for amendment were 
received at Richmond from angry citizens of practically all 
the counties concerned. 7 Henry County, in the southwest 
mountains, was one of those which immediately accepted 
the provisions of the new act. But as soon as the cost of free 
schools was computed "the biggest petition ever sent to the 
Virginia legislature" was presented at Richmond over the 
heads, it seems, of the school commissioners, protesting 
violently against the tyranny of the state in imposing a 
direct tax on property, and threatening "to secede" if this 
injustice was not corrected. The petition declares: 

"The new law arrays class against class. . . . The power to vote direct 
tax upon property is given to the man who is utterly destitute . . . and 
the commrnissioner's power to tax [i.e., to lay school levy and submit 
budget to the court] is unlimited. . . . We want protection against this 
galley yoke ... by which inducements are held out to the worthless and 
the idle to tax the man of substance for the benefit of the former." 

The petition shows that the establishment of the new system 
would raise the tax from $3500 for all civil purposes to 

6 Foreseeing a repetition in many counties of the indifference of county 
judges to act on popular school measures and the failure of the people to 
press them, a bill to provide for cases in which the courts failed to comply 
with the law just described occupied many hours of debate in the legislature 
which passed these acts. ■ Complicated and confusing amendments were pro- 
posed to defeat or improve this bill. The house committee attempted to amend 
it and Mr. Carson even attempted to amend the amendment. An amendment 
by Mr. Burwell, of Bedford, is attacked by Mr. Sheffey, of Augusta. Mr Daniel, 
of Richmond, proposed a third amendment. A fourth attempt is Mr. Zerby's 
demand for $100, later reduced to $50, to enable the counties to increase their 
school enrollment without a prohibitive local tax. Vide House Journal, 1845-6. 

7 House Journal, 1845-6. 



158 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

$10,500 8 to be paid by 7000 inhabitants. Thus the tax 
would be: 

"Trebled in one year, and then many people will either have to board 
their children near the school or keep them at home. . . . Virginia cannot 
compel us quietly to submit. [So far as Henry is concerned they] pray 
that this free school act be speedily repealed and the buildings be sold, 9 
etc." 

It became necessary to provide a second vote in all the 
counties affected by this special act, "to test the continuance 
of district free schools." King George County was authorized 
to call a new election "in case the people reject the system 
established February 25, 1846." In Henry County, in spite 
of the petition just mentioned, the people on a second vote 
sustained the new system by the decisive vote of 332 to 196, 
"and it may be regarded as the settled policy of the county." 
In reporting this, the commissioners add: 

"The value and importance of the system ... as well as its economy, 
compared with the imperfect system which has heretofore existed ... is 
so apparent that the board deems it unnecessary to say more. ... It is 
fully persuaded that nothing short of a district school system sustained at 
common expense and open to all free of charge . . . can fit the masses for 
their duties in a republican government." 

Permission to incorporate district free school systems 
was given Ohio, Jefferson, Kanawha, Patrick, Marshall, 
Cabell, and Wayne counties, etc., in Western Virginia, 10 
but the reports of i860 indicate that only Ohio, Jefferson, 
and Kanawha actually adopted free schools. Thus the sec- 
tion composing the present state of West Virginia was as 
tardy as the East in adopting any one of the district systems 
requiring local taxation for their support. In 1848 Ports- 
mouth incorporated a public school system. 11 Under the 
Martin Dawson bequest, Albemarle incorporated a similar 
system; 12 King George was permitted to establish a free 
school "within each area of four square miles." 13 Wash- 
ington County, "not approving the provisions of any of the 

8 House Journal, 1846-7. As a matter of fact free school expenditures, in 
Henry County in 1849, two years later, were about $5000 ($4000 from direct tax). 

9 House Journal, March 10, 1847. 

10 Acts of Assembly, Chapters 97, 101. 

11 Ibid., Chapter 104, March 28, 1848, Feb. 17, 1845. 

12 Ibid., Chapter no, March 14, 1849. 

13 Ibid., Chapter 113, March 8, 1849. 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 159 

laws of 1846," preferred to "continue in operation under the 
system of 1829," but asked for certain amendments to im- 
prove that statute. 14 One county adopted the magisterial 
district system which Virginia has finally accepted as her 
permanent unit of local school control, — Accomac, broken 
by the configuration of the eastern shore line, was allowed 
to divide itself into districts corresponding to its magisterial 
divisions. 15 Each magisterial district voted its own tax rate 
for schools and became a unit of school control. Unlike the 
present state school organization in Virginia, each district in 
Accomac was provided with its own superintendent. 

Even the conservative Amended Primary School law, the 
first of the Twin Acts of March 5, just described, was not 
accepted gracefully. Petitions — all of which were by vote 
laid on the table — were sent to the Legislature from com- 
missioners in the eastern counties of York, Surrey, Pittsyl- 
vania, Westmoreland, Nansemond, etc., praying for exemption 
from even the few obligations outlined. Albemarle County, 
on the other hand, "accords hearty approbation to the leading 
provisions of the Amended Primary System," i.e., the division 
of the county into convenient districts, with a commissioner for 
each district, a county superintendent, and exact enumeration of 
pupils: 

"These distinctive principles are auspicious of better results than have 
heretofore attended the educational afforts of the state. . . . But obscuri- 
ties in these primary acts of 1846 and 1847 — acts not in themselves 
complete systems but a sort of patch work intended to alter the pre- 
existing laws without due attention to correspondence of the parts — gives 
rise to much embarrassment." 

According to the Albemarle superintendent, the actual enumer- 
ation, of "poor" pupils under the new law was a big step 
in preparing the way for free schools because it revealed 
the large number who could never go to school until the 
quotas were doubled or trebled. For in the county 1298 
such children between the ages of six and sixteen were regis- 
tered in 1847, while the old methods had revealed only 550 
children under twenty-one. 16 

Throughout the state similar revelations were made by the 
commissioners, who, in answer to Mr. Brown's specific query, 

14 Ibid., Chapter 102, 1847. 15 Ibid., March 31, 1853. 

16 House Journal, 1848-9, Second Auditor's Report, Albemarle County. 



160 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

almost universally declared that the state quota was wholly 
inadequate to meet the demands of the poor. Many teachers 
continued to accept "poor" children without hope of even 
the "poor" scholar's fees. 17 The fee, too small at four cents 
a day to induce good teachers to do the necessary daily book- 
keeping for it, dropped as low as two and a half cents in 
some counties and the Marion County superintendent, in 
admitting this, adds that "considering the teachers, that's 
high," and with apparent disgust condemns 

"the miserable system of common school education in this state. The 
more experience [one] has . . . the more clearly is [one] convinced of the 
selfish, narrow-minded, impracticable bungling Legislation that has been 
made on the subject . . . there is nothing in the whole system that par- 
takes of more of the practical humbug than the accounts and statements 
required by the Superintendent of the Literary Fund." 18 

The report of the Marion commissioners the following year 
contains a more vigorous protest and a more direct personal 
attack on Brown: 

"While other States are becoming powerful by the liberal support they 
give public education, Virginia is impotent to everything that pertains 
to national greatness. Develop the intellects of the rising generation and 
they will develop the natural resources of the state. In short, it is useless 
to try to conceal the miserable, rickety system of Public Education in this 
Commonwealth by flaming reports and abstracts of its condition." 19 

Fluvanna County declared itself wholly unable to meet the 
demands of its poor, and with Charlotte "entertained little 
hope that anything short of free schools will ever remove 
this difficulty." 20 

"A fair trial of it [The Amended Primary System] may not be without 
important results and it may lead in due time to the adoption by the county 
of some one of the plans which lie at its option whenever it shall see fit. 
It is believed that the district free schools system might now or very soon 
be adopted if the necessary steps were taken for the purpose." 21 

This same writer, in a subsequent report, advocated the 
district free school system to replace "the present usage," 22 
which he could not call a system. The Giles board of school 
commissioners is satisfied from the trial given the Amended 
Primary School System in that county and from the benefits 
already apparent arising therefrom, that 

17 House Journal, Auditor's Report, 1848. 20 Ibid., Fluvanna County, 1848- 

18 Ibid., Marion County, 1849. 21 Ibid., Charlotte County, 1848. 

19 Ibid., Marion County, 1850. 22 Ibid., 1849. 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 161 

"if those to whom its management has been committed will do their duty, 
it will not only reflect credit upon its projectors but carry with it blessings 
to the poor and unfortunate throughout Virginia. [The newly appointed 
Superintendent] begs leave to remark that he has not visited schools 
generally, owing to the fact that in some instances three month schools 
were concluded before he knew of their existence." 23 

The Gloucester County superintendent states: 

"After ten years as commissioner the superintendent is decidedly in favor 
of a district free school system. . . . We have tried the old primary system 
and are now trying it amended and still little is accomplished and all for 
want of interest ... of the people. . . . Now under a system of free schools 
the mass of the people are compelled to be instructed. . . . Adopt a system 
of free schools." 24 

The superintendent of King William County, in the extreme 
East, thinks the task of arousing the state to its educational 
needs a field for a nobler patriotism than that of battle, 25 
but as a true Easterner he wished school progress to be an 
evolution rather than a revolution. From Richmond County, 
also, in the extreme eastern conservative section, comes this 
outburst: 

"It is idle and sinful ... to prate about progressive principles of democ- 
racy and attempt to be propagandists of these principles among people 
when decay and ruin are at work. . . . Under the strong government 
of Austria, education has been made compulsive, but under our mild 
system of laws it would, I fear, be considered too rigid to compel a parent 
to send his child to school when he needs him at home. Parents and 
guardians should be convicted in the form of a religious tract for gratui- 
tous distribution, that ignorance not poverty is disgraceful." 26 

Perhaps the superintendent of Lewis County, now West 
Virginia, stated the situation for the whole state when he 
bluntly put the blame for the failure of the primary schools 
not on the legislature but on the poorer people who refused 
to patronize the schools, not because of any repugnance for 
free education but because they cared too little for the educa- 
tion of their children to spare them from work at home. 27 
The superintendent of Albemarle County to overcome this 
apathy urged " vigilant supervision" of local schools; and 
a diffusion of " statistical and other information" among 
the people to convince the masses that the "old system is 

23 Ibid., Giles County, 1848. 26 Ibid., Richmond County, 1849. 

24 Ibid., Gloucester County, 1848. 27 Ibid., Lewis County, 1849. 

25 Ibid., King William County, 1849. 



1 62 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

really incapable of improvement." 28 He, too, placed his 
finger upon fatal weaknesses: (i) the lack of intelligent recog- 
nition on the part of the masses, as well as the well-to-do, 
that further progress could come only through local school 
tax, through abandoning the idea that the state could give 
something for nothing: and (2) the lack of a strong, central 
authority to diffuse information in a more popular way. 

The three school acts of 1846 make no mention of either a 
state superintendent or a state board of education with power 
and obligations beyond those of the officers of the Literary 
Fund Board. A volunteer state board was organized, with 
the appointment of the 1846 convention's " Central Com- 
mittee of Education" which attempted to serve the purposes 
of a state board (vide p. 150 supra). New local machinery 
was evolved through the new acts, but the state's place in 
the administration of them remained a mere dispensing of 
the endowment fund. It had not adopted the instrument 
of control so effective in present administration of funds — 
the withholding of "state aid" where specified standards are 
not achieved, and the rewarding of progressive communities, 
with special financial aid. 29 

Without a central guide or unifying force, the state 
labored under a confusion of school systems. The Act of 
1 81 8 had finally evolved into the Amended Primary System 
of 1846, without the aid of local taxation to develop its pos- 
sibilities, limited as they were; the Act of 1829, and the 
defeated proposals of 1778, 1796, 181 7, had evolved into the 
District System of 1846 and a series of minor acts for several 
counties adopting phases of the district free school system. 
In the Revised State Code of 1849, 30 an attempt was made 
to provide every county at once with some system of free 
schools by offering the option of adopting any one of the 
several district systems already authorized in the past. This 
choice must be made before July 1, 1850, when the code was 
to become effective. 

28 House Journal, Albemarle County, 1849. The report urges that the reports 
of the superintendent of the Literary Fund be distributed widely through the state 
and that popular interest be aroused by "primary associations" and through 
visits of a state school official "to each senatorial district to deliver addresses 
and distribute information, etc." 

29 This, one may recall, was Charles Fenton Mercer's advice to Virginia in 
181 7 and in 1826 to the American States. Vide pp. 59-61, supra. 

30 Acts of Assembly, 1848. 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 163 

It was becoming evident, however, to the friends of educa- 
tion that to secure compulsory taxation for common schools 
was all but impossible. Attempts to enforce the code were 
received with little encouragement in the counties for which 
it was especially intended. Murmurs arose in many quarters, 
and positive opposition in at least three counties — Appo- 
mattox, Warren and King William. The expression of this 
antagonistic spirit may be found in the commissioners' report 
to Brown in 1850. Appomattox states plainly that it "does 
not adopt the new system [district] of the Northern States, 
as it doesn't suit our conditions." 31 More caustic still is the 
superintendent of King William, who vigorously states: 

*' There is but one result inevitable. The whole fabric of the indigent school 
system which has really begun to do the State some service, will tumble 
to the ground. The new bill may be for the purpose of forcing the free 
school system upon a reluctant people. If it was intended to be carried 
out, it was framed with an ignorance of the manners, habits, customs, 
and circumstances of those upon whom it was to operate, or a more 
wicked disregard of them is unparalleled." 32 

Happily, the report from Norfolk County for this same 
year contains a personal note of congratulation to Mr. Brown, 
warmly supporting his efforts. The writer says: " Property 
is deeply interested in the education of all. . . . Higher 
interests are at stake and to educate, educate, educate is the 
only sure means of their promotion." 33 When the code 
went actually into operation a representative group of 
counties and cities created systems of free schools which 
mark the beginning of a genuine system of common schools 
freed from the odium of poor laws and open to all. These 
were the " District Free Schools for the Education of All 
Classes." Auditor Brown and his successors thereafter report 
this group as a separate state school system. 34 In 1855 these 

31 House Journal, 1850-1, Second Auditor's Report, Appomattox County. 

32 Ibid., 1850-1, Second x\uditor's Report, King William County. 

33 Ibid., Norfolk County. This enthusiastic letter from Superintendent 
Thomas Hume contains an account of his trip to a Philadelphia meeting (1850) 
of the National Teachers Association, the forerunner of the National Education 
Association, to which it appears he was sent by his trustees at public expense. 
This report is rich in suggestions for the selection, examination, and certification 
of teachers and is eloquent for the spread of the gospel of free schools. 

34 In 1853 Superintendent J. Brown, Jr., in charge of the state schools since 
1823, was succeeded by William L. Jackson. Two years later William M. Monroe 
became Second Auditor, serving till the Civil War. 



164 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

common school systems were in full operation in the eastern 
counties of Accomac, Elizabeth City, Norfolk, Princess Anne, 
Northhampton, King George, and the Tidewater cities of 
Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Fredericksburg; and in the trans- 
Alleghany counties of Washington, Jefferson, Ohio, Kanawha, 
and the city of Wheeling. The counties of Franklin and 
Monroe, which adopted the Act of 1829, do not appear in 
i860 among these progressive counties. The most active of 
them was the Norfolk County and Portsmouth City system, 
under the superintendence of Thomas Hume. 

One of the interesting facts relating to these new systems 
is that they did not represent any particular section but 
were widely scattered over the state. The counties of 
Elizabeth City, Princess Anne, and Norfolk are within a 
radius of a few miles of Norfolk, while Washington 
County in the extreme southwestern corner of the state is 
four hundred miles away. King George, in the "Northern 
Neck," is fifty miles below Washington on the Potomac 
River and but a short distance from Fredericksburg. Jef- 
ferson County, at the mouth of the Shenandoah, is in the 
lower " Valley of Virginia," Ohio County and Wheeling, 
in the Panhandle, touching Ohio and Pennsylvania, and 
Kanawha, are in the south central portion of West Virginia. 
Accomac and Northhampton Counties, across the Chesa- 
peake Bay, comprise what has long been known as "the 
Eastern Shore." Every section of the state, every original 
geographical division, had at least one genuine common school 
experiment in operation. In addition to these, other counties 
had local common schools in operation under private endow- 
ment; Albemarle and Nelson, for instance, were operating 
under the Martin Dawson Fund. Wood County and the 
city of Parkersburg voted to join the other counties in the 
new plan, but were unable to put the law into effect before 
the War. 35 It appears that all these experiments, with the 
exception of "the Eastern Shore," followed the industrial 
development of adjacent towns. 

Jefferson County, in 1855, was expending $4100 on 
teachers' salaries in twenty-seven common schools. The 

35 Second Auditor's Report, House Documents 1856-7; 1861-2. Other coun- 
ties voted on free schools too late to report or even adopt them. 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 165 

commissioners report "good substantial schoolhouses in all 
the districts, comfortable and commodious; the system 
is gradually accomplishing its object." 36 A nominal fee of 
fifty cents a quarter was charged for tuition, but "no one 
is dismissed on account of inability to pay. . . . Opinion 
prevails and it seems to be spreading that the free school 
deserves still greater encouragement." 37 King George re- 
ports progress: "While the rich and the poor are alike 
entitled to instruction ... an annual tuition fee is nominally 
charged . . . not to exceed $4 and graduated to meet the 
ability of all." The commissioners suggest a local tax of 
only "10 per cent on state taxes and 7 J per cent on mer- 
chant's and ordinary's licenses" to supplement this tuition 
fee. This county complains of "the manifest indifference 
of parents, for whom the schools are intended." Elizabeth 
City County reports in i860: "Schoolhouses are in all the 
districts with necessary school fixtures and apparatus . . . 
respectable persons competent to teach reading, writing, 
arithmetic, English grammar and geography are employed 
to conduct them at the rate of compensation varying from 
$1 to $1.60 a day." 38 Portsmouth, under Superintendent 
Hume, was typical of the best in the state. Mr. Hume says, 
"The system is working efficiently with us. We regard 
our public free schools as the great fountain from which 
fertilizing streams already begin to flow and which shall truly 
enrich our community. We educate in our schools all 
classes." 39 

Fluvanna, though not on the common school basis, indi- 
cates a practice employed in a number of counties in reporting 
that public education was being promoted by taking in all 
children who were willing to come, with the understanding 
among the parents that deficiencies in the Literary Fund 
quota would be made up by them. The superintendent of 

36 House Journal, 1856-7, Second Auditor's Report, Jefferson County. Ex- 
State Superintendent Thomas C. Miller writes that at least one of these school- 
houses remains in the county and is now occupied by a negro family. 

37 Ibid., 1861-2. 

38 Ibid., Elizabeth City County. The course of study here outlined is the one 
common to all these schools, a few schools taught "Latin, mathematics and moral 
and natural science," but this was the exception. These subjects were left to the 
subsidized private academy. Jefferson County gives $300 as the average teacher 's 
salary. 

39 Ibid., 1 86 1-2, Norfolk County. 



\ 



1 66 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Fluvanna says: " There are no schools exclusively confined 
to indigent children, but some are principally of this class. 
There does not appear to be any difference manifested in the 
attention paid by teachers to the other class." Mecklen- 
burg at the same time could, with some enthusiasm, exclaim, 
"We are happy to say that we do not find the morals of our 
children corrupted by association with the indigent, as many 
supposed." 

There was, on the eve of the Civil War, a superintendent 
and a county board of school commissioners in every county 
of the state. In 1861 every superintendent in the state 
gave at least a financial report on local expenditures of the 
Literary Fund. Many of them took occasion to suggest 
to the Second Auditor improvements in administration and 
method. These county superintendents were, under the 
obligatory sections of the Amended Primary School Act of 
1846, required to examine and license teachers, enforce uni- 
formity of textbooks, and stimulate community interest in 
public education. The commissioners, under the same law, 
were charged with the supervision of teachers and the care 
of school property. Although many superintendents neg- 
lected the schools for their farms and business, there were 
others who made real effort to examine and certificate 
teachers, to improve teaching methods by securing uni- 
formity of texts and by inaugurating teacher's meetings. 
Superintendent Hume of Norfolk County, who attended 
the National Teachers' Meeting in Philadelphia in 1850, 
was conspicuous in this movement. Superintendent J. D. 
Imoboden of Augusta County reports in 1854 that at the 
Second Auditor's suggestion he called a joint meeting of 
teachers and commissioners on December 25, " but only a small 
number of commissioners and fewer teachers were present." 

The Auditor's report for 1 860-1 shows that up to July of 
the latter year, the state had disbursed $298,869.89 of the 
annual income of $316,663.76 for public education. The 
permanent capital of the Literary Fund was now $1,877,364.68. 
The above disbursement did not include expenditures of 
local taxes and subscriptions in the counties organized on the 
basis of "Free Schools for All Classes," or of those operating 
under the Special Act of 1846. Of the total expenditure 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 167 

of state moneys, $190,075.79 had been paid over to school 
commissioners in 134 counties and 3 towns, for tuition, books, 
to administrative officers, etc., for the Literary Fund schools. 40 
In conclusion it may be said that the last unsuccessful 
stand for a uniform system of education was made in the 
Virginia Educational Convention, which held two sessions 
in Richmond, July 23, 1856, and August 25, 1857. 41 These 
gatherings were largely in the interest of the higher schools' 
share in the Literary Fund. The first session was devoted 
to a discussion of the work of the schools. At the second 
session a vigorous investigation of the condition and admin- 
istration of the Literary Fund was made. Both meetings 
were dominated by Governor Henry A. Wise. His address 
in 1856, 42 although florid at times, was a strong appeal to 
action and was so severe in its arraignment of existing chaotic 
conditions in laggard counties that he was forced to explain 
later that he had intended no charge against any individual 
county superintendent or commissioner. Abolition of the 
charity feature, — the stumbling block to a state system; the 
inauguration of a system of university supervision over 
the subsidized academies and of academy supervision over 
the district schools; the establishment of summer schools for 
teachers; a state agricultural school, etc., were among the 
things advocated in this convention address. "Further," 
he said, "it only wants a consentaneous, united movement 
to carry educational reform through the next legislature. 
The public mind is awake to the subject, the people really 
want their sons and daughters educated and the funds of the 
state to be most economically applied to that end. We have 
only to raise the standards of our institutions to win popular 
favor." It might be interpolated here that when Mr. Wise 
resigned his seat in Congress several years before to become 
Minister to Brazil, he addressed an open letter to his con- 
stituency: 

"If I had the archangel's trumpet, — the blast of which would startle 
the living of all the world — I would snatch it at this moment and sound 
it in the ears of all the people of the debtor states and the states which have 
a solitary poor, unwashed, uncombed child, untaught at a free, school — 
tax yourself! For what? 

40 House Documents, 1861-2. Document No. 7. 

41 House Journal, 1857, Supplement to Governor Wise's Annual Message. 

42 House Documents, 1857. Governor's Message. 



1 68 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

" i. To pay your state debt. 

"2. To educate your children — every child of them — in common 
schools at state expense . . . distrust all men who make false promises of 
freedom from taxation but tax yourself and learn to believe in it as the 
only means of getting what you need. . . . There is no royal road to 
paying debts or to education. Industry, honesty, economy and educa- 
tion alone can make you a free and happy people. . . . Educate your 
children — all of your children — every one of them ! . . . Don't wait 
for a tardy legislature, but organize yourself and make money by a volun- 
tary system." 43 

In still another connection we find Wise saying : 

"Schools should not be a state charity, but the chief element of the 
freedom of the state. . . . The poor man helps to make the state what it 
is; he discharges all his duties and ought to get all the rights and privileges. 
Let us abolish the old system and let all the children come ' without money 
and without price.'" 44 

In 1857, Governor Wise, in a special message to the 
General Assembly, advocated the convention's schedule of 
appropriation: 

University of Virginia $25,000 

Medical College 4,500 

Virginia Military Institute 4,500 

Twelve colleges 36,000 

To higher primary schools 36,000 

To infant primary schools 115,000 151,000 

$221,000 45 

Before the expiration of his term, Governor Wise repeated 
his recommendation that an appropriation of $250,000 be 
made — $120,000 to be devoted to the development of a 
well-administered system of common schools, and $40,000 
to the establishment and maintenance of one hundred high 
schools scattered through the state. This appropriation, 
however, was not made, as the legislature and people of 
Virginia were even then facing civil war. There could be 
no further institutional development. In the secret session 
of the Virginia Convention of 1861, which passed the Ordi- 
nance of Secession, the revenue of the Literary Fund — 
except the customary appropriation to the University of 

43 Reprint American Journal of Education, 1856, Vol. II, 557. Wise, in 
this open letter, strongly advocates a competent state administration of public 
education. 

44 Ibid. 45 House Journal, 1857, Governor's Annual Message. 



Schools for the Education of all Classes 169 

Virginia and to the Virginia Military Institute — was appro- 
priated for the military defense of the state, and the primary 
schools were, in consequence, suspended. 46 In the fall of 
1 86 1 Governor Letcher recommended that no further legis- 
lation be attempted till the restoration of peace. 47 

46 House Journal, 1861, supplement, Ordinance No. 66, Virginia Secession 
Convention, June 26, 1861. 

47 Ibid., 1861-2. Bi-Annual Message to General Assembly, fall session. 



CHAPTER XI 

EVOLUTION OF COMMON SCHOOLS INTERRUPTED BY THE CIVIL 
WAR. THE ACT TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM 
OF PUBLIC FREE SCHOOLS IN VIRGINIA, 1870. THE PRIN- 
CIPLE OF STATE CONTROL ACCEPTED 

The evolution of public education in Virginia was sadly 
interrupted by the War between the States. The nuclei 
of experiments in popular education scattered through the 
state in 1861 were abandoned when the Literary Fund 
was diverted to military defense. After the War the state 
at large seemed to forget its ante-bellum history of education; 
popular opinion was easily raised against common free schools. 
First, they involved great public expense at a time when the 
state staggered under debt; second, and more to the point 
if we are interested in the evolution of the free school idea, 
they became involved in the political controversies of the 
period of Reconstruction and associated with carpet-baggers 
and rabid equalitarian theories. 1 

Public ' education, in fact, presented a new and menacing 
situation, more serious than were attacks on property. A 
new free class was ready for the common school, — the emanci- 
pated negro; and many a negro and a few white radicals 
proposed that democratization be made complete by ad- 
mitting him on terms of equality with the whites of all classes. 
The negro was led to place his faith in the power of " literary" 
education as a means of giving him all that slavery had 
denied. In this enthusiasm he reversed the early nineteenth- 
century white man's apathy toward free " literary" schools. 
To the negro, only mixed schools could guarantee his com- 
plete emancipation, and, with the aid of sincere humani- 
tarians and political adventurers, he fought consistently 
for one common system of free schools for both races till 

1 Cf. Eckenrode, H. J., The Political History of Virginia during Reconstruc- 
tion, Johns Hopkins Studies. 

170 



Principle of State Control Accepted 171 

the good sense of the white men of both political parties 
asserted itself and repudiated the idea. Naturally, in the 
effort to break the political purpose of Reconstruction, and 
overcome the effort of the Union Leagues to force racial 
equality within the state, capital was made of this race 
fear. Public education was not only a heavy burden for a 
broken state to assume, but it threatened to be a social 
menace, if equal manhood suffrage was to mean mixed 
schools. 

The Hon. Harry St. George Tucker, sometime dean of 
the law departments of Washington and Lee and George 
Washington Universities, said, in 1906, in advocating better 
public schools in his campaign for the gubernatorial nomi- 
nation, that his first political speech was a bitter attack on 
the imported free school system. A prominent lawyer of 
Williamsburg once said to the writer that he conceived a 
bitter prejudice against two innovations of reconstruction — 
canned goods and the public school system. This bias is 
typical of many of the past generation, as many of this 
generation can testify. With this emotional reaction against 
free schools came a revival of the early motion that only pri- 
vate schools were worthy of support by the respectable, that 
the free school idea had, in fact, been repudiated by old 
Virginia and was a " Yankee leveler that would undermine 
the state's domestic institutions and destroy all society lines." 

It is true that the Underwood constitution of 1867-8 speaks 
clearly for the first time on public education. 2 Under Article 
VIII, the General Assembly must provide "at its first session 
under this constitution a uniform system of public free schools 
and for its gradual equal and full introduction . . . by 1876, 
and as much earlier as practicable." On July 11, 1870, 
"An act to establish and maintain a System of Public Free 
Schools" was approved. 3 But in passing this act, Virginia 

2 The constitution submitted to the "people" of Virginia in 1864 by the 
Alexandria Unionist Convention provided for free schools and public taxation 
for their support. 

3 Constitution of Virginia, 1869, Art. VIII, Sec. 3. (West Virginia passed 
an "Act Establishing a Free School System," Dec. 10, 1863, Acts of Assembly, 
Chapter CXXXVII of that state.) At the outset preference was to be given 
to elementary schools; to graded schools where the number of children justified. 
In 1874-5 provision was made for the "introduction of higher branches . . . when 
in accordance with the judgment of county and district boards; the purpose being 
to encourage a grade of instruction intermediate between the common school and 



172 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

did not create a new system of free schools. It rather per- 
fected its old system by the addition of the three main fea- 
tures, repeatedly suggested before the War: (1) A compulsory 
statute creating a central school government under the direc- 
tion of a state superintendent, and local, officials partially 
paid by the state; (2) the entire elimination of class dis- 
tinctions, — which the ante-bellum "Schools for All Classes" 
had already done in large measure; (3) "an annual tax upon 
the property of the state of not less than one mill or more 
than five mills on the dollar." The Literary Fund, with all 
proceeds from lands donated by Congress for public school 
purposes, all escheated property, all waste and appropriated 
lands, all forfeitures, and all fines collected for offenses com- 
mitted against the state was rededicated to common school 
education. The capitation tax "of one dollar on all men 
over twenty-one" created in 185 1 was reinserted in the new 
constitution. Permission was given local districts to impose 
a tax upon themselves, "not to exceed five mills on the 
dollar." 4 

The post-bellum school organization finally adopted under 
this act and subsequent amendments provided for (1) a 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction with extensive 
powers, appointed by the General Assembly; (2) a State 
Board of Education, 5 comprised of the governor, attorney- 
general and the state superintendent, — with power to 
name, with the concurrence of the senate, a superintendent 
for each county and, until 1877, the district trustees as well; 
(3) county superintendents, paid for the most part from 
the Literary Fund, who by virtue of their salary and elec- 
tion by the State Board, became state rather than local 
officers; (4) a board of three trustees for each school district; 



college, and such branches were authorized as are necessary to qualify pupils 
to become teachers as well as to fit for college." Report of U. S. Commissioner 
of Education, 1880, 326, based upon Superintendent Ruffner's report for the 
preceding year. 

4 Constitution, 1868, Art. VIII, Sec. 8. 

5 To insure a nonpartisan board, subsequent legislation in 1900 has extended 
the membership of this board to eight, adding a city and county superintendent of 
schools and three members from among the faculties of higher state educational 
institutions. These are selected by the legislature on nomination from the staffs 
of these schools. In this way only three out of eight men are elected on party 
tickets and the board is removed from the test of the ballot in a way which would 
have never received the approval of Jefferson. 



Principle of State Control Accepted 173 

(5) a school trustee electoral board (added in 1877) made up 
of the county superintendent, the commonwealth's attorney, 
and the county judge or a free-holder appointed by him, — 
its duty being to elect the county boards of school trustees 
or commissioners; (6) the division of the counties into school 
districts corresponding to the magisterial districts, not fewer 
than three districts to a county and each district to be sub- 
divided into local districts or townships of not fewer than one 
hundred people — the county remaining the unit of govern- 
ment and the local district becoming the subunit; (7) teachers 
chosen by "subdistrict directors," employed by district 
trustees, and certificated by the county superintendent. 

Apparently this scheme had little reference to the Jef- 
fersonian ideal of local school administration and the great 
Democrat's fear of government. Autocratic powers were 
put in the hands of a few; for in this hierarchy of centralized 
power, the actual administration of local schools was removed 
from the electorate at practically all crucial points. The state 
assumed ample power to force or entice the local communi- 
ties to improve school conditions. The Literary Fund re- 
mained the chief instrument of state control and has played 
a great part in recent years in the appointment of non- 
partisan county superintendents and in the rapid increase of 
high school buildings through loans from the principal for 
such purposes. 6 

The General Assembly had, before the Civil War, been 
largely occupied with theoretic discussions of state versus 
local control and how, in establishing schools, to avoid taxa- 
tion for them. The new constitution settled the first con- 
troversy and led the people into accepting the principle of 
taxation. Well-grounded fears, apathy and indifference, as 
well as a new, strong political opposition remained to be 
overcome. Sincere friends of the private school idea must 
be convinced; misrepresentation was rife. The success of 
the new system must depend upon a vigorous, aggressive, 

6 Acts of Assembly, March 15, 1906, revised March 26, 1916. This double use 
of the Literary Fund to- encourage local taxation and school improvement was a 
happy thought. Now the community desiring to build a new schoolhouse can 
borrow from the principal of the Literary Fund itself giving fifteen-year bonds 
at 3 per cent and 4 per cent. The writer is informed that about one third of the 
principal of the Literary Fund is now at interest in the various school districts 
of the state. 



174 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

yet persuasive state leadership. This could be supplied only 
by a native in possession of the confidence of the best people 
of the state and able to interpret the new in terms of the 
history of the state. 

It could have been no accident, then, that Dr. William 
H. Ruffner, suggested, it is said, by General Robert E. Lee 
himself, was appointed the first state superintendent by a 
Republican General Assembly. The new superintendent 
was a native Virginian whose father, Dr. Henry A. Ruffner, 
president of Washington College and the most prominent 
figure in the ante-bellum Virginia common school revival, 7 
had long before proposed a way to a state system of free 
schools. Superintendent Ruffner's first contribution to the 
state was the Act of 1870 itself. Elected by the legislature 
on March 2, he, with the assistance of Professor J. B. Minor, 
worked out the details of the bill that was passed in July. 8 
Familiar with the work of his father and the evolution of 
public education before the War, his first effort was, as he 
said himself, to convince the people from their own history 
that the new act was the fruit of their own effort made before 
the carpet-bagger and scalawag came. He furnished, there- 
fore, one of the essentials of success, a popular campaign as to 
the origin, purposes, and future of free schools. Superin- 
tendent Ruffner's controversy with the Reverend R. L. 
Dabney, D.D., in defense of "The Public School System" — 
seven articles published in the Richmond Enquirer, April, 
1876, and his " Circulars — Reports of the Superintendent 
of Public Instruction, 1870-9 " — furnish a most compre- 
hensive documentary history of education in Virginia up to 
that period. 9 

7 William Henry Ruffner and the Rise of the Public Free School System of 
Virginia, John P. Branch, Historical Papers, Randolph-Macon College, Vol. Ill, 
No. 2, pp. 124-144; also Sketch of Wm. H. Ruffner by his daughter, Mrs. Barclay, 
West Virginia Historical Magazine, October, 1902; and Virginia School Journal, 
May 1, 1902. 

8 Virginia School Report, 1885, Part Three. In less than four weeks after the 
passage of the act, the State Board organized and elected twelve county superin- 
tendents. On January 1, 1871, the state system was in operation. During this 
year 3000 schools, with 130,000 children in attendance, were in operation. There 
were 27,000 children in private schools. 

9 Besides a lucid statement of the arguments for state-supported nonsec- 
tarian public education, Dr. Ruffner includes in circulars the following documents: 
abstracts from the letters of Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 14, 1818; Jan. 22, 1820; 
Nov. 28, 1820; Dec. 25, 1820; Jan. 13, 1823; Jan. n, 1826; Feb. 7, 1826; 



Principle of State Control Accepted 175 

It is interesting to note that although Superintendent 
Ruffner was compelled to combat ignorance, apathy, and 
poverty, he encountered little active opposition except in the 
form of such academic controversies as that with Dabney. 
The Underwood Convention, fearing open resistance against 
a uniform system of free schools, inserted in its constitution 
a clause providing that "each city and county shall be ac- 
countable for the destruction of school property that may take 
place within its limits by incendiaries or open violence." 10 
But "not a case of incendiarism or violence occurred," for, as 
Dr. Ruffner put it, "taken altogether, probably no new scheme 
of legislation ever operated more smoothly." u 

Not, however, until the second generation after Recon- 
struction, in- the first decade of the twentieth century, did 
that New Era prophesied in 181 6 come to the state. This 
constructive period of state inspection, consolidation of 
elementary schools, the real beginning of high schools, 
final acceptance of school taxation with maximum levies for 
school purposes, had its beginnings in the administration 
of Governor Andrew Jackson Montague, 1900-04, and that 
regime of vigorous reconstruction under the leadership of 
Joseph D. Eggleston, 1906-13. But the history of the post- 
bellum era is beyond the province of this study; it need 
only be said that the powers of the hierarchy created in 1869 
were by the code of 1902 12 greatly increased and that the 
state is, indeed, entering upon a new era. 



facts regarding the several plans of Jefferson; a letter from President 
Monroe to Governor Nicholas, 1816; Governor Campbell on "Public Free 
Schools"; the Governor's messages of Jan. and Dec. 1839, dealing with illiteracy 
and praying for the preparation of good teachers; John P.. Thompson on "Public 
Schools"; the message of 1843 of Governor McDowell, "Life-long Advocate of 
Public Schools"; Superintendent Smith of V. M. L: "Upon the Establish- 
ment of Common Schools in this State"; the addresses of Governor H. A. Wise 
on the necessity of public free schools, etc. 

10 Constitution of 1868, Art. VIII, Sec. n. 

11 Report, U. S. Commissioner of Education, 1880, 340. Dr. Ruffner admits 
that because the mode of raising school taxes was unpopular in "two or three 
counties . . . there was a disposition ... on the part of a very few individuals to 
throw obstacles in the way of their collection"; on the contrary, Dr. Barnas 
Sears, agent of the Peabody Fund, said, in 1871, "The cities and districts in Vir- 
ginia which we have assisted to the amount of $26,000 this year have themselves 
paid for schools and schoolhouses not far from $280,000; more than half as much 
as was paid last year ($550,000) by all the places receiving aid from us in twelve 
states." 

12 Constitution of Virginia, Revision of 1902. 



176 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

It remains to us, then, to summarize the conclusions of the 
preceding chapters. What were the inheritances from this 
earlier period which our study aims to reveal? What were 
the influences for or against the evolution of the free school 
idea before the Civil War that have profoundly affected 
subsequent legislation and in such large measure determined 
popular opinion? 



CHAPTER XII 

A SUMMARY OF COMMON SCHOOL PROGRESS BEFORE THE 
CIVIL WAR. CONCLUSIONS 

The progressive ideal of the American Free School is, in all 
the states, the fruit of contest against Old- World conceptions, 
and a phase of the evolution of democracy. Its success 
may be associated with the Civil War period and the rapid 
social-economic changes that followed that war, though 
all the states laid its foundations in the earlier period. Vir- 
ginia, therefore, in establishing a centrally organized common 
school system in 1870 was, in fact, apace with the American 
states at large and not the backward, benighted state that 
prejudice and ignorance have sometimes pictured her. The 
battle for the democratization of education began in the 
Virginia Assembly in the year of the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence and continued unremittingly till 1870/ More accu- 
rately, it may be said to have continued into the present 
time. If the Northern and Western states and even her 
neighbor, North Carolina, passed somewhat more rapidly 
through this democratizing process, what, then, may be said 
to have been the reasons why Virginia did not profit by her 
initial start? 

A popular idea since 1869, even within the state and cer- 
tainly in many places outside the state, is that the Under- 
wood Convention brought the common free school idea from 
New England and forced it upon a people antagonistic to any 
form of popular diffusion of knowledge and dedicated to the 
principle of differentiation of class through education. But 
unless ready to assimilate them a people commonly repu- 
diates foreign customs and progressive systems of government. 
It would have been impossible for any alien or, for that matter, 
native body to force the people of Virginia to accept an in- 
stitution distasteful to them. Defects and successes in 
popular school administration in the state must, therefore, 

177 



178 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

find their explanation in the social history of the ante-bellum 
period. 

The presence of slavery has been brought forward as a 
partial explanation of the South's difficulty in moving 
rapidly toward the free school idea; for it is recognized that 
as long as legal slavery existed neither the owned nor the 
owner could be responsive to democratic institutions. But the 
class and sectional struggle which went on within ante-bellum 
Virginia and the geographical conditions which determined 
her effort to keep her house in order and at the same time 
assimilate democratic ideals has found little place in ordinary 
discussions of the educational traditions of the state. Much 
has been written upon the transplanted English institutional 
life in colonial Virginia; little has been done to evaluate 
the evolutionary process through which that state passed 
during the early national period. 

It should be borne in mind that, after all, North and South 
have very much more in common in the struggle for popular 
free schools than they have differences. All thirteen original 
states were essentially English in customary thinking and 
in their love of English institutions, among which the free, 
common school had not appeared. They were an agricul- 
tural people, living under primitive conditions, isolated 
and tradition-bound in many practices. There were few 
towns to break the influence of country life. 1 In New 
England and New York, however, enough industrial interests 
developed to place the center of aristocratic influence in the 
city of New York and in the party of Alexander Hamilton. 
Virginia, on the other hand, became identified through 
Thomas Jefferson with a theory of democracy which placed 
its faith in the small farmer class, opposed the rise of an 
artisan class, and protested against an autocracy of church, 
state, or industry. 2 

The state struggled against the same influences which 
retarded all the original states — acceptance in theory of 
the political ideals of democracy but retention in practice of 
aristocratic notions and institutions, — safeguards of economic 

1 Norfolk, i860, had but 24,420, Richmond 22,000, Lynchburg 3000, while the 
aggregate town population was but 175,000. 

2 Beard, op. cil., 413-66. Vide p. 14, supra. 



A Summary and Conclusions 179 

interests whether these were slavery in the South or infant 
industries in the North. Among the rank and file there 
was a national faith in training for immediate needs and a 
corresponding reluctance to accept the more remote values 
of a " literary" education. Exigencies of frontier life post- 
poned the concept of training for citizenship among the self- 
supporting middle class till the practical demands of their 
environment had been partially met. Money was too scarce 
and revolt against taxation had been too large a factor in 
American Independence to make the idea of public support 
of an institution, not yet fully appraised, a popular one. To 
be taxed for the support of one's neighbor's children without 
one's individual consent was held by many, in all the states 
along the seaboard, to be an abridgment of the rights of 
democracy. 

In common with the Southern states, Virginia failed to 
develop agencies to combat certain obstructions to progress- 
ive society. It failed to develop a township system of local 
self-government. Favorable geographical conditions gave rise 
to slavery. It remained an agricultural section supporting 
a system of social and economic distinctions based on the 
classic ideal of "wealth and worth." It perpetuated a scheme 
of appointive officers; Thomas Jefferson is said to have 
observed, "Many die in office but few resign." Royal anti- 
commercial policies, early imposed upon the colony, made 
it reflect, as Governor Berkeley said, "England out of town." 
It failed to enter upon the industrial revolution that followed 
the war for political independence, as did the Northern 
states, which were developing towns, extensive trade relations, 
and many industries. While the population of these states 
was doubling every decade, Eastern Virginia remained sta- 
tionary or actually decreased in population. 

Means of communication were limited, country roads 
were poor and devious. A penalty imposed by negro labor 
was the "trial and error" method of farming and the burden 
of the "one crop" system, which in many sections of the 
South to-day still menaces its economic life. The coming 
of the steam railroad, the introduction of improved agricul- 
tural implements, scientific methods, commercial fertilizer, 
and the increased importance of towns and commercial 



180 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

interests in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, 
marked the advent of a newer era and were parallelled by- 
progressive and concerted movements for public education. 
The Southern Commercial Congress of 1850, the rapid growth 
of Norfolk at that time, the successful prosecution of public 
internal improvement, and the great impetus given the 
" Schools for All Classes" during the fifteen years before 
the Civil War were evidences of this newer period. 

Virginia was, therefore, during the early national period, 
essentially a state of country-folk, feeling little of that 
quickening which comes with industrial movements, and 
responding slowly to demands for improved methods and 
mechanics. Apathy on the part of the masses and a boasted 
conservatism among the well-to-do find their explanation 
here. Governor John H. Means, in his annual message to 
the South Carolina legislature in 1853, spoke in high praise 
of the Southern people's ability to conserve their sectional 
interests by avoiding new and radical influences from without: 

"Too scattered for combination . . . too separated for extension of 
licentious doctrines and habits, too intent upon the staid [through] the 
nature of their pursuits to indulge in unhealthy dreams . . . preserving 
what is established through a homogeneous interest and occupation." 3 

The point of this study lies, however, in those reasons, 
peculiar to Virginia, why the Jeffersonian educational phi- 
losophy and the state's persistent effort to build a common 
school system partially failed. Even. from its Southern neigh- 
bors, Virginia was marked off by certain peculiar obstacles to 
successful common school legislation. These have been dis- 
cussed in some detail in earlier chapters and touched upon 
throughout this study. In the main these difficulties were 
a paralyzing sectionalism in politics, a strong slave controversy 
within the state, and the premature educational legislation 
of 1 81 8, which came as one of the regrettable results of the 
Jefferson-Mercer controversy over the school bills of 181 5-18, 
disposing of the Literary Fund income for the maintenance 
of a state university and a system of scholarships for the 
education of "poor" children. 

A few facts may profitably be reviewed here. Not only 
did the Old Dominion suffer the blight that must have come 

3 Southern Review, "Destinies of the South," 1853, XXVII, 199. 



A Summary and Conclusions 181 

to the largest slave-holding state of the South, but its popu- 
lation was early thrown into a number of small self-sustain- 
ing units by its river systems and cut in half by a great 
mountain chain. Mountains are natural national boundary 
lines; people thus cut off from one another are never like- 
minded. This geographical factor contributed to a division 
of interests and habits of life and thought; Virginia was never 
a political unity except in name. The western counties 
beyond the mountains naturally developed a nonslave-holding 
middle class of increasing power and increasing insistence to 
be heard on the great questions of internal improvement. 4 
The influence of this middle class in the trans-Alleghany 
region had grown with immigration from eastern Virginia and 
from the Northern and Western states. This immigration, 
however, was seriously checked by a lack of market and trans- 
portation facilities and by the uncertainty of western land 
titles which involved new settlers in litigation and frequently 
drove them to other states. A writer of the time says: 
"Litigation has depopulated the very western territory which 
most needed settlers to develop our new, larger, rich regions." 5 
This defective land system in turn naturally affected free 
school progress. Another writer, making a demand for 
improved educational facilities, incidentally says: 

"We need laws protecting bona fide settlers which will encourage people 
to come in and occupy lands which now no one can claim with assurance 
even when more is paid for it than in the East. If this is done, there will 
be many small farms and with them will come the District System and 
school libraries." 6 

The life of a progressive people depends upon its power 
to sell its products, to reach a profitable market. The rivers 
of the eastern slope, it was claimed, gave that section every 
facility to market its goods. But the Great Barrier shut 
the small farmers and cattle raisers of the Valley and western 
slope from these natural waterways, The necessity of the 
West, therefore, was improved facility for marketing its prod- 
ucts. Rapidly developing a majority in population, that 
section demanded taxation for internal improvement. The 

4 Cf. Ambler, C. H., op. cit., for political significance of this factor. 

5 Reprint Norfolk Daily Argus, op. cit., 1857. 

6 Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 17, 1840, a correspondent from Wheeling. 



182 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

eastern counties, however, long retained the power of with- 
holding such appropriations for public works by controlling 
representation in the General Assembly. As a contemporary 
editor phrased it: "Thus the power of the state was divided 
against its necessity." Threatened by the national move- 
ment for the abolition of slavery, the East neglected its in- 
ternal affairs for the larger question of national politics. The 
West, dominated by its need of reaching a market, demanded 
and finally achieved the equalization of power in the state 
legislature necessary to accomplish its purpose. 

As a result, a new era of internal improvement dawned, 
and in the decade before the Civil War the state raised by 
taxation more than twelve million dollars for improving trade 
facilities. By 1857 these internal improvements are said to 
have doubled the value of 500,000 slaves ($237,000,000) and 
increased real estate holdings more than one hundred million 
dollars. On the eve of the Civil War, Governor Henry A. 
Wise, in advocating a $25,000,000 appropriation for public 
improvement, showed how this money could be provided 
by public taxation without serious embarrassment to the 
people of the state. 7 Great expenditures for public improve- 
ment, however, plunged Virginia heavily in debt and checks 
were placed upon appropriations to save the credit of the 
state. The financial panic of 1857 caused consternation. En- 
thusiasm for taxation waned. Unfortunately, this reaction 
came at the time when the free school idea was finding a more 
general acceptance among the people. 

The increase in valuation of property indicated above is, 
of course, an index of the state's wealth as a whole. Less 
than half of the people owned slaves. The slave-holder, 
however, was not as a rule the carefree opulent gentleman 
of leisure or the master of finance that popular fancy paints 
him. The average Virginian farmer of the early nineteenth 
century lived well, but ready money was scarce. Even with 
the large property holder, all the plantation produced went 
back as a rule to feed himself and his servants. Dependent 
upon fluctuations in the prices of the great staple crops, the 
farmer too often looked to next year's harvest for this year's 

7 Reprint "Wealth, Resources and Hopes of Virginia," Norfolk Daily Southern 
Argus, 13. 



A Summary and Conclusions 183 

purchases. 8 Borrowing and lending was common and many 
became seriously involved. The service of the negro slave 
was an expensive form of labor. Waste in sickness, old age, 
and childhood was a drain upon profits that modern capital 
knows little of except, perhaps, through compensation laws. 9 
Adapted for extensive farming, — which made for the culti- 
vation of large areas, and in consequence, the isolation of 
country life, — he perpetuated poor methods and the single- 
crop idea. It was comparatively late in the national period 
when the Norfolk Argus could say: 

"The increase of population and the comparative activity of trade in 
the eastern portion of the state has changed the large plantation system 
of culture into small horticultural and arboricultural farming. The im- 
mense fields once scourged by tobacco are bright under a rotation of 
cereal and garden products or made green again by manures and grazing. 
Fertilizers are beginning to be used." 10 

Crop failure, or low prices of tobacco, corn, or cotton deter- 
mined the wealth of the community. In adversity the local 
school or academy was the first to suffer. Hence came the 
transient teacher and what was well called the "ambulatory 
school," — both flourishing in periods of prosperity and both 
moving on when money was scarce. 11 There is little wonder 
that the small planter and the large one dreaded the burden 
of a compulsory tax. 

The practical problem, therefore, in inaugurating a state 
system of common schools, was how to popularize it. The 
best way would undoubtedly have been to have encouraged 
the common man to educate his children by making education 
cheap enough for him to afford, and thus to have led him to 
understand its values. Virginia, in creating the top and 
bottom of a system of schools by the Act of 1818, gave no 
incentive to the great mass of the people of the state to build 

8 Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX, 133. This, of course, is one of the 
evils of a "one-crop" system and is a present-day menace to rural life. 

9 In reporting a conversation, in 1774, with Mrs. Robert Carter, Fithian says: 
"We both concluded that if in Mr. Carter's or any Gentleman's estate all the 
Negroes should be sold and the money put to interest and let the lands which these 
Negroes now work, lie wholly uncultivated, the bare interest would be greater 
than what is now received from their working the Lands, making no allowance 
at all for the trouble and- risk of the Masters as to crops and Negroes." Fithian, 
op. cit., 145. 

10 Reprint Norfolk Daily Argus, op. cit., 1857, 13. 

11 Evangelical and Literary Magazine, "Philodemus," IX, 136-7. 



184 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

an efficient system of middle schools. To the small farmer 
there were no intermediary schools to bridge the chasm 
between the primary schools and the entrance requirements 
of the University. If he wished to send his boy to the Uni- 
versity, he must apparently resort to the tutorial system to 
make up the deficiencies of neighborhood private schools. 
And the expense of tuition in the select schools, . usually en- 
tailing the additional cost of board, was prohibitive for many 
freeholders intelligent enough to appreciate the value of 
education for their children. Though Virginia families were 
notably large, private schools in early Virginia were, as a 
contemporary authority tell us, "the most expensive in the 
country." 12 One magazine writer illuminates the situation, 
after reading Russell's " Travels in Germany," by observing 
that in borrowing from Europe the state failed to borrow 
the European system as a whole. There education in pre- 
paratory schools was generally within reach of the man of 
small income — Scotland's tuition was only six shillings a 
year — and standards in the universities were high. In 
Virginia, " preparatory schools are poor and deficient, yet 
the University has European standards. Where education 
costs much, people are apt to neglect it." 13 

The Act of 1818 not only gave no incentive to the poor 
man, but led to a recrudescence of prejudice. Two powerful 
factors arrayed against later movements for the introduction 
of cheaper schools were the mistakes in the administration 
of and the psychological defects in the state's first experi- 
ment with "free" schools. The free school idea had difficulty 
in proving itself. The more flagrant abuses of the Literary 
Fund schools were not overcome before many lost confidence 
in the new, and saw greater competence and advantage in the 
private or "select" schools which tradition sanctioned. As 
one of the period very frankly put it, "These had secured 
the confidence of parents interested in the cause of education 
before the day of common schools." Besides, many, in 
spite of their devotion to republican principles of govern- 
ment, would not risk their "promising son to a seminary 
where the children of Tom, Dick, and Harry are brought 

12 Evangelical and Literary Magazine, "Philodemus," IX, 133. 

13 Ibid., IX, 196, 207. 



A Summary and Conclusions 185 

together in vulgar and suspicious communion." 14 In theory 
these Virginians were democratic, but in practice touching 
their children they were not. Those who had never pat- 
ronized private schools were not quick to respond to the new 
schools. As an enlightened correspondent to the Richmond 
Enquirer observed: 

"Literary training does not appeal to working men. Nor does it appeal 
to men who have toiled many days and by severe economy laid up a little 
money to enter new lands, to lose the time of their children from domestic 
labors. . . . These are moral difficulties to be overcome. . . . The unin- 
formed do not see the necessity of educating their children for their own 
benefit or for the benefit of the state and are, therefore, unwilling to yield 
any of their scant physical comforts for, to them, the ideal advantage 
in dangerous luxuries of learning." 15 

Charles Fenton Mercer, in the famous legislative struggle 
of 181 5-18, made a futile effort to build a school system 
under state leadership, hoping afterwards to teach the people 
how to use it, and finally how to pay for it. This was the 
spirit of his bill of 181 7, many of the actual details of which 
were, perhaps, borrowed from Jefferson's original proposals; 
but in his plea for a centralization of state authority he was 
Jefferson's most active opponent. In 1826 Mercer, in his 
"Discourse on Popular Education," says that those states 
successful in common school legislation, notably Connecticut, 
had led the people to a realizing sense of their responsibility 
in the matter of taxation, by central state administration 
and through a policy of rewards and penalties. The Mercer 
bill of 181 7 was lost. The succeeding legislature passed the 
notable bill of 1818, establishing the University of Virginia 
and creating the Literary Fund scholarships for "poor" 
children. 

There has been no attempt in this study to rob Jefferson 
of his great place in the history of education in Virginia, and, 
for that matter, in the United States. No one else approxi- 
mated his influence or foresaw so clearly the ultimate 
character of the American free school. This is common 
knowledge. But he failed at times to gain his ends by being 
too strict a constructionist. Unfortunately, Jefferson lived 
so near in time to the governmental abuses of the Old World, 
and realized so well the advantages of the Northern town- 

14 Southern Review, 184.1, 53, et seq. 15 Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 17, 1840. 



1 86 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

ships machinery for the expression of popular will, that he 
sacrificed a state school system when it seemed to obstruct 
the inauguration of this machinery. As President of the 
United States, he had felt the force of the New England town- 
ship and regretted its absence in Virginia where he feared 
autocracy would rob the state of the fruits of the Revolution 
itself. Fearing government, he would curtail evidences of 
centralized power at every point. To place the machinery 
of the people's schools in the hands of a state board of 
education, to centralize the powers of school administration 
and taxation was, to Jefferson, to inaugurate only a new 
autocracy. A system of schools would become both a means 
and an end in his scheme of a democratic state. As the 
success of both popular government and popular schools 
would depend upon the practice of local cooperation and com- 
munity initiative, the state should not rob the community 
of this opportunity to exercise these powers. The people 
must be encouraged to initiate their own tax for schools, 
to build their own schoolhouses, to elect their own adminis- 
trative officers, to appoint and license their own teachers. 
The school system would, in fact, hasten the day in Virginia 
when township or local self-government would be realized. 

Successful inauguration of such a system of people's schools 
would have been in itself a triumph of democracy. But 
the social history of the state had been against such expecta- 
tion of the people's leading themselves out of their own 
blindness. Certainly, contemporary school history is elo- 
quent against it. To expect such power in a people pressed 
by the elemental demands of frontier life and trained in 
Virginia's social system was to demand more than is re- 
vealed in the social evolution of New York, Connecticut, or 
Massachusetts in spite of their popular assemblies. Apathy 
among the masses was, perhaps, the chief deterrent to edu- 
cational progress, but this was not to be overcome without 
governmental agencies. George E. Dabney, appealing to 
the state in 1841 for educational leadership, goes to the root 
of the difficulty in both the nation at large and Virginia in 
particular when he eloquently exclaims: 

"The true friend of his country and his kind must run ahead of popular 
opinion and endeavor to change it in those regions where ignorance has 



A Summary and Conclusions 187 

created a spirit of opposition to improvement. The want of knowledge 
is the last want which the ignorant feel. . . . Would that some man of com- 
manding talents, great experience, and spotless integrity . . . some DeWitt 
Clinton . . . some Horace Mann . . . would sacrifice private ease, honor, 
... to the hope of rousing the dormant energies of his fellow citizens to 
judicious action on this subject. His would be a Herculean labor . . . 
prejudice, ignorance and indolence would raise their hydra-heads on every 
side." 16 

In the clash of argument in which friends of popular edu- 
cation split hairs over the question of local versus state control 
of school government, democracy was summarily defeated 
by a minority of conservatives who pressed through the Act 
of 1 81 8. The dream of democracy had overleaped itself. 
The only class fully conscious of its needs and exercising any 
degree of real interest in school legislation had obtained what 
it wanted. The aristocratic element could now send their 
children to their own university; that element could also 
employ tutors to fit their sons to enter it. Individualism 
had been played against a fear of autocracy and the progress 
of the free school idea was interrupted. Had Mercer's policy 
prevailed, an effectual beginning of a state-supervised free 
school system might have been made. In its failure, Jef- 
ferson must be accredited with a large share. Confidence 
in an extensive system of private select schools among the 
well-to-do, a contempt for free education among the small 
freeholders, the exigencies of a stern physical environment, 
and a feeling that literary training does not help one conquer 
new land, — all played their part in defeating the rapid growth 
of common schools. 

Finally, in listing the retarding influences in common 
school development, the questionable character and meager 
preparation of the elementary school teacher should be 
mentioned. The average transient teacher of the average 
early " adventure" school was not a convincing argument 
for public taxation to the small farmer who needed his 
children's help on the farm and who thought in terms of an 
education that would guarantee for himself and family the 
tangible needs of life. On the other hand, the tutorial system 
naturally affected the status of the teachers of the lower 
schools. The tutor was well paid and carefully selected. 

16 Southern Literary Messenger, 1841, VII, 631-7. 



1 88 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

As Fithian said, in 1774, the family teacher just out of college 
was generally appreciated, though he were a youth, a 
foreigner, and had neither wealth nor Virginia family con- 
nections. 17 In English tradition this contrast between the 
tutor and the town or " adventure" teacher was early felt. 
Not only was this traditional attitude perpetuated but no 
native teaching class replaced that of the colonial era. An 
element of prejudice was added. The " Old Field School," for 
the most part, was taught by imported teachers, many of 
whom, according to a persistent tradition, were transients 
and wilfully or unwittingly antagonized the rural population. 
Their formalism in manner and dress, an emphasis on dis- 
cipline, and a "sense of duty," strange to Virginia customs, 
brought open hostility to the unsuspecting neighborhood 
teacher where he did not look for it. After the spread of 
anti-slavery propaganda, the suspicion of neighborhoods was 
not infrequently directed against these transients. There 
is little doubt that the state's inability to encourage larger 
numbers of natives to remain permanently in the profession 
had much to do with the failure of many counties to tax 
themselves for common schools. 

What, then, may be said to have been Virginia's part in 
the evolution of national progressive ideals in education? 
What were the social inheritances from the ante-bellum 
period which determined the future policy of the state and 
laid the foundations of its school system, dedicated to the 
free school idea? 

Thomas Jefferson furnished a fundamental philosophy 
of education and the constituent elements of the plan for 
free schools for all classes, and Charles Fenton Mercer fore- 
cast the state's highly centralized organization which has 
been necessary to accomplish this philosophy. The earliest 
proposal for democratic free schools considered by any 
American constitutional convention was Jefferson's Bill for 
the more General Diffusion of Knowledge, 1779. In adopting 
the permissive statute of 1796, a part of this earlier plan, 
Virginia was a pioneer in elementary school legislation, even 
though that law remained a dead letter. In 1802 the colonial 

17 Fithian, op. cit., 287. 



A Summary and Conclusions 189 

Church glebe lands were seized by the state, and under a 
reorganization of the poor laws became available for free 
school purposes. A number of the counties sold their glebe 
lands and, uniting local legacies with the funds from these 
sales, established poor school systems. In 1810, a small state 
endowment fund — The Literary Fund of Virginia — was 
created and dedicated to primary education. In 181 5, on 
motion of Charles Fenton Mercer, the Literary Fund was 
augmented by refunds from the Federal government of loans 
made by Virginia to help prosecute the War of 181 2. This 
million-dollar foundation precipitated the historic struggle 
of 181 5-18 which ended in appropriating $45,000 of the 
Literary Fund income for free scholarships for the poor in 
the private schools and $15,000 toward the establishment 
of a state university. Liberal appropriations were subse- 
quently made to complete the University, but no further 
help was extended primary schools. In eight years nearly 
$1,000,000 was spent in building a magnificent top and an 
insecure bottom of a public school system. 

The needs of the middle class and intermediate schools 
were left out of the state's bounty, but in succeeding years 
the tax-payers were given opportunity to accept a great 
variety of district free school plans, beginning with the Act 
of 1829, and ending with the Acts of 1846. Virginia, how- 
ever, has never accepted a district system comparable in 
details to the township schools of the Northern states. The 
Act of 1829 presupposed a sufficient density of population 
to support central schools, but only the modern policy of 
consolidation of schools, backed by vigorous state leadership, 
liberal state subsidy, and a trained superintendent has ac- 
complished the work projected by this legislation. The 
District System of the Northern states failed, therefore, 
wherever attempted, because it left too much to the initiative 
of country people widely separated and unused to coopera- 
tion and collective expression, and because after all, as Mr. 
Burwell, of Bedford County, said in the legislature of 1841, 
it was "a transcript from some other system," with little 
reference to traditions and geographical conditions in Virginia. 

The foundations of a common school system were rather 
laid in the success of the charity schools, of the Sunday 



i go The Free School Idea in Virginia 

school movement, and in the evolution of Poor Laws 
through the schools subsidized under the Act of 1818. What 
Virginia evolved before the Civil War came through the 
growth and popularization of the quasi-system of state 
subsidies created under that act. 

To launch the primary school system, stigmatized as it 
was by pauperism, was no mean task. Yet in spite of in- 
adequate machinery to inaugurate it, class prejudice, and 
sectional feeling, the system grew rapidly, and in many 
counties it became merged in the county common school 
systems which sprang up just prior to the Civil War. It 
will be interesting to glance through a statistical proof of 
this expansion: 18 

F ppWhitp Number of Number of Poor Average Cost to 

Year r/ A ; ,- Counties drawing Children in State per Child 

Population qUQta Schod pgr Annum 



1822 (a) 


621,000 


48 




3,298 


$7-03 (b) 


1823 




90 




8,53i 


5.12 


1824 




98 




10,226 


4.81 


1825 


648,000 


99 




9,779 


4.90 


1826 




97 




11,007 


4.48 


1827 




102 




12,642 


4-34 


1828 




102 




n,799 


3-33 


1829 




101 


(c) 


14,169 


2.82 


1830 


694,000 


95 


(c) 


6,000 


2-45 


1831 




98 




16,100 


2-45 


1832 




100 




17,081 


2.52 


1833 




103 




18,006 


2-45 


1834 




103 




18,921 


2.41 


1835 


712,920 


104 




19,965 


2.36 


1840 


740,859 


117 




47,32o 


i-5i 


1850 


894,800 


129 




50,000 




i860 


1,047,411 


all 




85,455 





In the towns the annual Literary Fund quota went largely 
to the existing orphan, Lancasterian, charity and Sunday 
schools. At first the county poorhouses frequently con- 
ducted such schools under the auspices of the state. These 
were, of course, scorned generally as "poor" schools. But 
in the country districts the classic but nondescript and 
unstable institution known as the "Old Field School" was 
given great impetus. Itinerant teachers, with the assurance 

18 1822 to 1835 based on Second Auditor's Report of 1830; 1840, 1850, i860, 
United States Census: (a) 1822 reported only partially. Cf. Governor Pleas- 
ant's message, 1823, which reports 105; (b) decrease of cost due to local supple- 
ment and increased attendance; (c) decrease due to Act of 1829; no reports from, 
counties adopting new district system. 



A Summary and Conclusions 191 

of aid from the commissioners, were encouraged to set up 
schools in neighborhoods that had never before afforded a 
school and in which even well-to-do children had not been 
in sufficient numbers to encourage the establishment of a 
primary school. These schools, established frequently in 
discarded buildings and in roughly and carelessly con- 
structed ones, helped spread the gospel of education among 
people otherwise indifferent to " literary" training or ignorant 
of the way to cooperate in bringing teachers to their com- 
munities. The rural communities needed just the stimulus 
that the best of these itinerant teachers supplied — the idea 
that schools were possible to communities that had never sup- 
ported one. 

From 1818 on, Virginia was actually supporting at great 
expense two systems of education — an extensive private, 
" select," or fee school scheme and a free school system 
evolving out of it. It is, therefore, necessary to glance, in 
passing, at the growth of the private schools; for in the 
figures just cited from Auditor Brown's reports only the 
number of pupils whose tuition was paid by the state is listed. 
As the poor children were seldom in the majority, except 
in the charity schools of the towns and the Sunday schools, 
the 16,000 poor children listed in 1830 represented only 
a part of the entire school population in quasi-state schools 
for that year. The number of pupils in private grammar 
schools and the academies must have been large. The Ameri- 
can Annals of Education reports for 1830 one hundred and ten 
grammar schools conducted by private teachers, who sup- 
ported themselves by a small tuition fee 19 (usually a dollar 
a month), fifty-five privately maintained or endowed acad- 
emies, and twenty or more female seminaries that had 
sprung up since the Revolution. 20 It will be recalled that, 

19 The Evangelical and Literary Magazine, IX, 133-4, average cost of tuition in 
lower schools $10, in' the higher schools $50-60 a year. Owing to sparsely settled 
country, children frequently boarded near these schools, adding naturally to these 
estimates and consequently cutting down the number of schools through lack of 
support. In many cases a parent must either board out his children, employ a 
tutor, or because of small enrollment, pay the price of several tuitions for one pupil 
in order to keep the teacher from deserting his post. Dr. J. H. Rice estimated, in 
1 8 18, that Virginia was expending more than one quarter of a million dollars on 
education outside the state. 

20 American Annals of Education, 1833, III, 67, 68. Cf. London Quarterly 
Journal of Education, July, 1832, article by a late professor of the University of 
Virginia. Reprinted in American Education Society Register, 1833, V, 321. 



192 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

in 1 82 1, friends of the academies and colleges blocked an 
extension of the charity scholarships in the primary schools 
by forcing through a law providing that whenever the revenue 
of the Literary Fund exceeded $60,000 by as much as $20,000, 
the academies should be allowed to share in the excess. 21 
In 1835, the first year after receiving their share of such 
subsidy, there were 387 academies, with an enrollment of 
11,088 pupils, although only a few actually received state 
money or reported their condition to the Second Auditor. 
In 1844 Second Auditor Brown reported 3677 schools, 
primary and secondary, which participated in the Literary 
Fund in one hundred and twenty-two counties of the state. 
The state paid for the education of approximately 60,000 
children. A large number not included in this estimate were 
taken care of by private schools in those counties whose 
quotas were not large enough to go round; for in many 
sections it was customary in such a case to accept children 
who were anxious to go to school but unable to pay a tuition 
fee. 

The glory of the state was in her great university and her 
colleges. In 1840, according to a boast appearing in the 
Southern Literary Messenger of that year, only four states 
surpassed Virginia in the number of colleges, i.e., seven with 
a total of over one thousand students! It will be recalled 
that from the beginning the Literary Fund had been the 
bone of contention in the triangular fight of primary school, 
academy, and university parties, each, at times, fighting 
more or less independently and selfishly for participation 
in the fund; that the " solemn protest" of the creators of the 
fund against any future legislature's applying it to any other 
purpose than that of "the Education of the Poor" had been 
early disregarded. In addition to the apportionment to the 
University in 1818, and to the academies in 182 1, the colleges 
of William and Mary, Washington, Hampden-Sidney, Ran- 
dolph-Macon, then at Boydton, Emory and Henry and 
Richmond eventually received a share of the Literary Fund 
through loans. In 1838 the deaf, dumb, and blind children 
were given a share for an institution at Staunton. 22 In 1842 

21 House Journal, 1821, 15; Acts of Assembly, 1836, 7; 1838, ^^. 

22 Acts of Assembly, 1838, 31. 



A Summary and Conclusions 193 

a small annual appropriation was allowed the Virginia Mili- 
tary Institute to encourage the training of public school 
teachers. 23 In 1844 the Medical College at Richmond was 
subsidized; the same year a subsidy was granted a medical 
college in the Valley of Virginia; 24 in 1836 the Western 
Lunatic Asylum received a share. There were many other 
claimants to the fund. All of the colleges receiving state aid 
were brought under the supervision of the state. 

Fortunately the Literary Fund had grown in spite of a 
state treasurer's defalcation 25 in 1820, loose bookkeeping, 
inefficient methods of collecting fines, etc., and confusion 
in the settlement of claims for arrearages. Money from 
the sale of United States lands, old Revolutionary claims 
upon the Federal government, new fines for unlawful gaming, 
etc., and several private bequests, notably that of Martin 
Dawson, had, since the Act of 1818, helped swell the orig- 
inal fund by i860 to $1,877, 364. 68. 26 In 1851 the state 
imposed a capitation tax for primary schools — the first 
constitutional recognition of the cause of public education. 27 
By 1856 this tax added $60,000 to the Literary Fund, and 
doubled the revenue for elementary schools, the total income 
rising in 1861 to $316, 663. 76. 28 

In 1846 a system of county superintendents was instituted 
as one of the results of the conventions of 1 841-5. These 
superintendents were selected by and were to act with a 
county board of school commissioners. The work of Second 
Auditor Brown . during more than ten years before their 
creation, in endeavoring to educate his school commissioners 
to the necessity of visiting schools, of examining teachers 
and in assisting them in the selection of proper texts, school 
sites, etc., had prepared the public mind somewhat for the 
acceptance of these officers. By 1846 Virginia may be said 
to have had the nucleus of its future organization — a sub- 

23 Ibid., 1841-2, 21; 1847, J 8. Vide pp. 81, 82, passim. 

24 Ibid., 1843-4, 29; 1846-7, Mar. n. 

25 Ibid., 1821, 14; Richmond Enquirer, Jan. i, 1822; Jan, 26, 1826. 

26 Vide pp. 45, 158, supra. 

27 "A capitation tax equal to the tax assessed on land to the value of $200 shall 
be levied on every male inhabitant who has attained the age of twenty- two; and 
one equal moiety of the capitation tax upon white persons shall be applied to the 
purposes of education in primary and free schools. ..." Acts of Assembly, 1851, 

33i- 

28 Vide p. i66 ; supra. 



194 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

stantial endowment fund dedicated from the beginning to 
public education, a system of county superintendents, a 
quasi-superintendent of public instruction in the superin- 
tendent of the Literary Fund, a volunteer Central Com- 
mittee of Education, and a State Educational Association 
with local branches. 

Although the Code of 1849 did not succeed in forcing all 
counties to accept the provision of one of the common school 
statutes, Virginia did place itself abreast of its sister states 
(vide p. 163 supra) in the adoption by many counties of 
the " District Free Schools for the Education of All Classes.'' 
These school systems established in Norfolk, Elizabeth City, 
Princess Anne, Northampton, King George, Albemarle, 
Accomac, Washington, Ohio, Kanawha, and Jefferson Coun- 
ties and the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Fredricksburg, 
and Wheeling were typical of the best American educational 
development of the time and may be said to have marked 
the culmination of ante-bellum progress in public education 
in Virginia. As was shown in a preceding chapter, these 
counties were not confined to any particular section but were 
widely scattered, although the majority centered around 
the city of Norfolk, — the oldest section of the conservative 
East but the section most responsive to trade and commercial 
expansion. 

This distribution of counties experimenting with common 
schools was, as Mr. Brown had said of the experiment of 
1829, "as yeast leavening the whole." Future progress in edu- 
cation was to achieve for the whole state what these counties 
evolved for themselves. Even if the principle of " voluntary 
contributions" had not been generally replaced by public 
taxation at the time of the Civil War, the foundations of a 
new, nonsectarian, publicly supported, and state-controlled 
public free school system had been laid for both eastern and 
western Virginia. What remained to be done was to make 
democratization complete by centralized power at Richmond 
and by the removal of the long-recognized obstacle to a state 
system — the " pauper" scholarships of the primary schools; 
to create a native, efficient teaching class in whom the people 
could repose confidence; to insure the permanency and 
professional efficiency of this class through state examination 



A Summary and Conclusions 195 

and certification, normal schools, county training classes 
and institutes; to provide effective, intelligent state leader- 
ship in obtaining local cooperation in the consolidation of 
schools, to improve the physical condition of schoolhouses and 
grounds; and finally to remove that "apathy bred of isola- 
tion" by convincing country people that popular education is 
neither a public charity nor a mere civic right but a common 
obligation upon all for the protection and development of the 
commonwealth itself. 

Finally, it may be said that the free school idea grew with 
the commercial life of the state. As long as Virginia's ideal 
of worth was measured by land, there must needs have been 
a scattered population, great disparity of wealth, and a 
system of private schools. 29 Common schools could come 
only as "the scourge of the tobacco fields" was lifted to give 
way to small farms and to the commercial spirit. This 
movement was felt in the decade before the Civil War. In 
eleven counties and four cities, comprising about one sixth 
of the population of the state, there was in successful opera- 
tion a genuine system of common, free schools, "The Schools 
for the Education of All Classes." 30 Many other corporations 
were actually supporting common free schools but did not 
report to the Second Auditor under this title. In the last 
few years of this period there was a rapid movement among 
the counties to replace the older Literary Fund schools with 
this new system. The city of Parkersburg and the county 
of Wood, now part of West Virginia, voted to accept free 
schools so late in 1859 that war was upon them before the 
idea could be extended. In fact, Virginia was on the eve of 
accepting the free school idea in its fullness. However, 
just when the state was entering upon a new era of school 
development, when small farms, better farm methods, and 
the use of fertilizers were changing the character of the state, 

29 To speak of a system of private schools is, of course, a contradiction in terms. 

30 The counties and cities actually accepting the principle and provisions for 
"The District Free Schools for the Education of All Classes" had in i860 a total 
white adult population of 160,000. The foreigners born in the eastern counties 
ranged from two in King George to 439 in Elizabeth City; in the trans- Alleghany 
counties from 708 in Wood to more than 5000 in Ohio. The aggregate foreign- 
born population of the state was 35,000 as compared to 1,000,000 in New York 
state. 



196 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

the whole course of social evolution was diverted by prepa- 
ration for war. 

Yet even in this decade of war preparation, great progress 
was made in elementary education. In addition to the 
" Schools for All Classes" in the counties and cities enu- 
merated, there was a quasi-state free school system of some 
merit in every county of the state, with its own superintend- 
ent and commissioners reporting annually to the State Superin- 
tendent of the Literary Fund. In 1845, before the advent of 
the county superintendents, forty-five counties reported that 
"the majority of their schools" were in operation "for nine 
months and upwards," while only eighteen reported sessions 
as short as "three to six months." The counties of Alle- 
ghany, Amherst, Fayette, Grayson, Harrison, Lee, Madison, 
Marion, Montgomery, Page, Russell, Shenandoah, Smith, 
Tyler, and Warren, all in the sparsely settled sections of 
mountain regions, reported schools for "different periods 
not specified." 31 

According to the United States census of i860, 32 154,963 
children of a white population of 1,047,411 were in public 
and private schools within the state. 3896 public school 
teachers and 3778 public school buildings are accredited 
to Virginia; while for Massachusetts, with a population of 
1,231,068, only 5308 teachers and 4134 buildings are reported. 
Virginia reported 86,452 and Massachusetts 46,921 adults 
who could not read or write. New York State, with a popu- 
lation of 3,880,735 is accredited with 121,878 illiterates, 
164,782 paupers, and more than 50,000 convicted criminals. 
Massachusetts reports 51,880 paupers and 12,732 convicts; 
Virginia, with a population four fifths as large, supported 
only 6027 public paupers and convicted only 608 people 
of crime during the year previous to the census. These 
statistics are brought forward to indicate a relatively 
healthier state of affairs than is frequently supposed. There 
is no desire to claim more for the state than the facts allow; 
it is true that Virginia still retained the public declaration 
of poverty as a prerequisite to free tuition in her public 

31 House Journal, 1845-6, Document No. 4, 43, for statistics on length of school 
term, uniformity of texts, etc. 

32 U. S. Census, i860, Population, 506,512, vide p. 190 ff. supra. 



A Summary and Conclusions 197 

schools except in the "Schools for All Classes," but so, until 
1867, did New York State. 

All that can be said in conclusion is that the Old Dominion 
sustained itself through the travail of a marvelous struggle 
to accept a new political ideal without rending the state and 
sacrificing its property and peculiar interests. The removal 
of slavery was the final step in passing from colony to 
commonwealth. With the freedom of the negro the state 
itself became free. If Virginia accomplished less than several 
of the other states in the days before the War, it had greater 
obstacles to overcome and required more time for the 
fruition of those principles of the Rights of Man which 
found such ready advocates in the many Virginians of the 
Revolution. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The main sources of this study have been the Proceedings of the 
General Assembly, 1 776-1870, particularly the Journal of the House 
of Delegates; the files of the Richmond Enquirer, 1804-44, and the 
Fredericksburg, Virginia Herald, 1 789-1825; the private correspon- 
dence of Jefferson, Cabell, Mercer, etc.; contemporary magazines, 
especially The Southern Literary Messenger, The Evangelical and Lit- 
erary Magazine, etc.; The Annual Reports of the Second Auditor 
and all official state documents dealing with any aspect of public 
elementary education. The following references represent a more or 
less complete classification of primary and secondary sources: 

I. Statutes at Large, Acts and Journals of the General 
Assembly, and -Other Public Documents 

Hening, William Waller, Statutes at Large, 1619-1792. Thirteen volumes. 
Shepherd, Samuel, Statutes at Large, 1 791-1808. Three volumes. 
Acts of the General Assembly, 1808-19 13. 
Revised Code of Virginia, 1819, two volumes. 
Code of Virginia, 1849, two volumes. 
House and Senate Journals, 1776-1870.- 

Annual Report of Second Auditor {House Journal, 1819-50; printed under 

separate cover thereafter as House Documents). 
Annual reports of County School Commissioners and supplementary docu- 
ments printed with the Annual Report of Second Auditor. 
Bills for schools, presented or passed and their consideration; resolutions to 

amend, etc. 
Governor's Messages, 1801-57. 
Literary Fund; Annual Report of Second Auditor on state of; Report of 

President and Directors. 
Memorials of Educational Conventions, 1841, 1845, to the Legislature. 
Overseers of the Poor, reports of. 

Petitions of Citizens for charters for academies, Sunday schools, charity schools, 
for improved school conditions, etc. 
Report of Rector and Board of Visitors of the University. 

Special Reports to the legislature and governors on other systems of schools, sug- 
gestions, letters, etc. 
Benjamin Smith on Prussian System. 
Proceedings and Debates of Constitutional Conventions of 1829-30; 1867-8. 
Documents of General Assembly, 1856-7; 1861-2. 

199 



2oo The Free School Idea in Virginia 



II. Virginia Newspapers 

Alexandria Herald, 1816-26. 

1 816: Academy, incorporating Mongolia, Jan. 20. 

Academy, public examination at Alexandria Female, Dec. 30. 
Unequal representation in the Assembly and "Call of Convention," 
June 3, July 10, July 24, Aug. 16, Jan. 29. 
181 7: Literary Fund Banks, debates in Assembly, Jan. 10, Jan. 13. 
1818: University, Report on, Dec. 16, Dec. 18, Dec. 21, Dec. 28. 
Charlottesville, Virginia Advocate, 1830. 
1830: Education, poem, May 7. 

Notes on Pleasures of School, Nov. 26. 

Philadelphia Society for Promotion of Public Schools, Nov. 5. 
Sketch " self-supporting school," Aug. 6. 
Teacher wanted at salary of $800, Aug. 26. 
Fredericksburg, Virginia Herald, 1 789-1825. 

1809: Charity School, notice annual meeting, Jan. 28. 
Annual oration before male, Feb. n. 
Financial statement, Feb. 15. 
Notice semiannual meeting of trustees, July 29. 
Annual sermon before female, Sept. 30. 
1810: Church lands, sale of, for St. Mary's Academy, Dec. 11, Dec. 18. 
Governor Tyler's message on schools, Dec. 12. 
Literary Fund established, Feb. 17. 
1812: A Charitable Plan for the New .Settlements, May 23, May 30. 

Charity School (male), twentieth annual address before, and financial 
report of, Feb. 8. 
1813: Charity School (male), annual oration and financial report, Feb. 13. 
1815: Charity School, Lancasterian System, July 15. 

Education, James Dillard on importance of, Oct. 7. 
Simday Schools in Richmond, Report American Bible Society, July 8. 
1816: Charity School (female), adv., Mar. 2. 
Collection for, Oct. 19. 

Oration before and meeting of trustees, Sept. 30. 
Lancasterian School (female), oration before, meeting of trustees, 

financial report, May 30. 
Legislature appoints Committee of Schools and Colleges, Jan. 20. 
Literary Fund, Report of, Jan. 20. 
Report submitted to House, Jan. 31. 
181 7: Central College, description of, Sept. 13. 

Lancasterian School, Norfolk; Samuel Low at cornerstone laying, Aug. 1. 
Literary Fund, resolution to establish Literary Fund Banks, Jan. 1. 
Mr. Booker moves to use Literary Fund for state debt, Feb. 19. 
Primary Schools, Bill to establish, Feb. 8, Feb. 19, Feb. 26. 
Sunday schools, suggestions to establish, July 1. 
Teacher wanted for (adv.), Oct. n. 
1818: Lancasterian School (female), annual address before, Jan. 10. 
Legislature, The patriotic, of 1815-16, Apr. 1. 



A Bibliography 201 

Literary Fund, Act appropriating part of, Mar. 11. 
Reading room, effort to establish in Fredericksburg, Dec. 2. 
Sunday Schools, extract from Governor Clinton's speech, Feb. 23. 
First annual report Episcopal Sunday School, Apr. 25. 
First annual report Presbyterian Sunday School, Jan. 7. 
Fifteen thousand children in Sunday schools in Baltimore, Mar. 18. 
University, Aug. 15. 
1 819: Charity School (female), patrons make changes, Nov. 20. 

(male), twenty-fourth annual meeting and financial report, Feb. 20. 
Lancaster, Joseph, extended the privilege of the floor of Congress by 
Burwell Bassett of Virginia, Feb. 17. 
Letter to Burwell Bassett, Feb. 17. 

Speaker Clay, a pun, Apr. 21; his visit to Fredericksburg, Oct. 30. 
Reprint of Ode to, Oct. 30. 
Lancasterian School (female), annual address to, Mar. 6. 

Persons reminded to support (adv.), July 2. 
Sunday schools, second annual report (Episcopal), May 8. 

Second annual report of Sunday schools under care of Presbyterian 
and Baptist churches, Jan. 20. 
University of Virginia, passage of act to establish, Jan. 6, Jan. 30. 
Proceedings relative to, Feb. 31. 
1820: Hampden-Sidney, history of, Dec. 16. 
Sunday school in Upper Essex, Sept. 9. 

University of Virginia, Rector's report (Thomas Jefferson), Oct. 2. 
1823: Charity School, annual meeting (adv.), Jan. 22. 
Literary Fund, for more rigid accounting, Feb. 8. 

Loan to University, Mar. 1, Mar. 5. 
Primary Schools, bill to establish, Feb. 1. 

For more rigid accounting of County School Commissioners, Feb. 8. 
University, loan from Literary Fund, Mar. 1, Mar. 5, Feb. 1. 
1824: Garnett's, Mrs. James M., school at Elmwood, Essex County, Aug. 24. 
Sunday schools, seventh annual report Fredericksburg Society for, Jan. 3. 
University, report of Rector, Dec. 10. 
1825: Literary Fund, on increase from U. S., Dec. 28. 
University, progress of, Dec. 14, Oct. 1, Oct. 12. 
William and Mary, on removal of, Feb. 5. 
Lynchburg Press, 1820-22. 

1821: Education of Poor in Lynchburg, "Howard" Article I, May 7; Article 
II, May 31; Article III, June 7. 
Hampden-Sidney, course of study, Aug. 24. 
Lynchburg Female Institute, course of study, Sept. 7. 
Oriental Education, Dr. Horowitz Method, June 19, June 21. 
Sunday schools in Lynchburg, Feb. 9. 
University — Jefferson's Letter, Nov. 30. 
1822: Literary Fund, Act to amend, Mar. 15. 
Lynchburg Virginian, 1822-4. 

1822: Lynchburg Charity School, petition to incorporate, Dec. 20; petition 
granted, Jan. 23. 



202 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

1823: Literary Fund, financial report, Jan. 24. 

County arrearages, Dec. 12. 
1824: Fellenberg School, a proposal to the legislature, Mar. 5. 
Female Education, J. M. Garnett's book on, Aug. 13. 
Leesburg The Genius of Liberty, 1817-21. 

1818: Bill to establish schools and colleges, Feb. 10, Mar. 10. 
1819: Mr. Hazen's system of improved method, Nov. 9. 
1821: Literary Fund, Jan. 9, Feb. 27. 

Bassett's bill to appropriate part of to University, Mar. 6. 
County arrearages, Mar. 20. 
Textbooks, American School Class Books, Apr. 24. 
Norfolk Herald, 1831. 

Apathy on the subject of Education, Nov. 6. 
Portsmouth Old Dominion. 

1839: J. Holbrook's scheme of farmer teachers, Sept. 16. 
Quotation from Wilderspin, July 6. 

Theophilus Fiske on the need of a new system of primary schools, 
Sept. 21. 
1840: Defects in present methods, July 18. 
Richmond Enquirer, Thomas Ritchie, editor, 1804-45. 

1806: Advertisement for teacher for Free School in Williamsburg, Mar. 21. 
1809: Lancasterian Schools, A Plan to Educate ten thousand poor children, 

Reprint from Edinburg Review, May 23. 
1 8 10: Academy, Petition St. Mary's Parish for sale of church lands for, Dec. n, 
Dec. 18. 
Female education, Jan. 4. 
1815: Internal Improvement, need of schools, etc., Dec. 5, Dec. 14. 

Debates on equal representation for West, Jan. 20. 
1816: Education, Dec. 30. 

Internal Improvement, "Farmer," Mar. 9. 
Lancasterian School, Richmond, cornerstone laying, June 29. 
Legislature, editorial urging establishment of schools, Jan. 13. 
Editorial, "Well done, good, etc.," Mar. 2. 
Compliments to New York Columbian, Mar. 23. 
Proceedings of, Feb. 24. 
Literary Fund, passage bill appropriating United States debt to, Feb. 28. 
Mercer, C. F., moves for Digest of System of Public Education and 

adds United States debt to Literary Fund, Feb. 24. 
Primary Schools, "Where are they?" editorial, Mar. 2. 
Bill to establish, Jan. 22. 
Free in every county, Mar. 9. 
Public Schools, June 29. 

Teachers trained in Lancasterian Schools, June 29. 
Staunton Convention for equal representation in the Assembly, July 10, 
July 24, Aug. 16. 
181 7: Jefferson's bill adopted and ordered printed, Feb. 21. 

Legislature, review of session, 1816-17, and lack of school legislation 
Feb. 28. 



A Bibliography 203 

Literary Fund Banks, Jan. 4, Jan. 10, Jan. 13. 

Mr. Booker's resolution to use Fund for state debt, Feb. 15; for 
primary schools, Feb. 14. 

"A Farmer" opposes Literary Fund Banks, Feb. 2. 

Mr. Mercer advocates Literary Fund Banks, Jan. 4. 

Report of President and Directors of, Jan. 29. 

Description of source, purpose, etc., Dec. 1. 
Methods of teaching, Aug. 20. 
Governor Preston's message to Legislature, Dec. 1. 
Primary Schools, Bill reported to Select Committee, Mr. Scott's speech 
on, Feb. 22. 

Bill to establish, reported and postponed, Feb. 6, Feb. 14, Aug. 8, 
Aug. 10, Aug. 13, Aug. 14, Aug. 19, Aug. 31. 

Draft of bill as reported by Mr. Scott, Feb. 6. 

Rejected in Senate 7 to 7, Feb. 20. 
Garnett's resolution, Jan. 12. 

Letters arguing against General Education Bill, Feb. 18. 
Defense of bill by "S," Feb. 28. 
Public Education, letter, Feb. 18. 

Staunton Convention for equal representation, Jan. 29. 
1818: Central College, proceedings of legislature on, Jan. 24. 
Female Education, Nov. 6. 
Jefferson, Dec. 22. 
Literary Fund, Jan. 6, 

Bequest of S. Jones, Prince William Co., Dec. 24, Dec. 29. 

Editorial on taking $45,000 from, for education of poor, Jan. 22. 
Nelson County report on primary schools, Apr. 27. 
Primary Schools and the General Education Bill, Feb. 12. 

Opposition to General Education Bill by a "Constituent who 
Doubts Concerning Its Merits" (nine articles), Jan. 1, Jan. 31, 
Feb. 12, Feb. 19, Feb. 21. 

"Vindication of the Proposed System" (six articles), Feb. 5, Feb. 12, 
Feb. 14, Feb. 19, Feb. 26, Mar. 17. 

Editorial by Thomas Ritchie on ''$45,000 for Poor Children," Feb. 28. 

Mr. Thweat's caution regarding state management of schools, Jan. 6. 

Report of commissioners of Nelson County, Apr. 27. 
Sunday Schools — report of Bible Society, Apr. 14. 
University, report of Board of Visitors on site of, Apr. 10. 

Report of Board of Visitors, Aug. 14. 
1819: Education of Poor, a sale to be applied to, Jan. 23. 

Lancasterian school incorporated at Staunton, Jan. 23. 
Lancaster and Clay, Feb. 13, Mr. 4. 

Reception in Richmond and account of lecture, June 15, Nov. 2, 
Nov. 5. 
Literary Fund, Feb. 4. 

Nelson County Schools, Report of J. C. Cabell, Apr. 27. 
Sunday Schools in Richmond, Report American Bible Society, May 7. 
University, Act to establish, Jan. 28, Apr. 30. 



204 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

1821: Literary Fund, financial statement, Feb. 4. 

Statement of county quotas, Dec. 25. 
Primary Schools, resolution asking reports of county commissioners, 
Dec. 20. 

Statement of disbursement and arrearages, Dec. 20. 

Danger of accepting funds for from Congress, Dec. 23. 
University, Report of Rector (Jefferson), Dec. 15. 
1822: Literary Fund, move to return to treasury, Jan. 1. 

Move for more accurate accounting, Jan. 29. 

Move to discard President and Directors, Feb. 23. 

Bill to amend act concerning, Mar. 2. 

Mr. Boiling on, Mar. 12. 

Loaned to private individuals without security, Dec. 31. 
Primary Schools, Jan. 29. 
University, Debt due Literary Fund, Jan. 1. 

"What shall be done?" Dec. 12, Dec. 14, Dec. 17. 

Appeal to complete, Dec. 31. 
Removal of capitol, Feb. 2, Mar. 15, Mar. 29, Nov. 1. 
1823: Literary Fund, securities of loans from, Jan. 25. 

Loan to University, Feb. 1. 

Treasurer's report, Dec. 4. 
Primary Schools, a plea for, "Marcus," Jan. 28. 
University — Rector's report, Jan. 7. 

A plea for, Jan. 28. 

Loan from Literary Fund, Feb. 1. 

"Leonidas," Feb. 4. 

"Western Citizen," Feb. 6. 

Loan of $60,000 from Literary Fund, Feb. 28. 

Medical Department in Richmond, Nov. 4. 

Report of Rector, Dec. 6. 
1824: Representation in State Assembly, inequality of east and west, Jeffer- 
son, Apr. 27, May 28. 
University, legislative proceedings regarding loan from Literary Fund, 
Jan. 15, Jan. 17, Jan. 22. 

On applying bonus from banks to, Mar. 2. 

Loan from Farmer's Bank, Mar. 9. 

Annual appropriation from Literary Fund, Mar. 9. 

Professors for, May 25. 
William and Mary, on the removal of, July 2. 

Report of Visitors on the site of, July 6. 

Leo Hen'ey on the site of, July 13. 

"Alumni" on site of, July 27. 

"Honestus" reply to "Alumni," Aug. 3. 
1825: Primary and Intermediate Schools, the need of, Dec. 13. 

William and Mary, Late Student on removal to Richmond, Jan. 8. 

President Smith on removal to Richmond, Jan. 29. 

President Tyler on removal to Richmond, Jan. 10. 



A Bibliography 205 

University, on professors, Oct. 11. 
Students expelled, Oct. 14. 
Rector's report to Literary Fund, Dec. 10. 
1826: Literary Fund, contrast with efficiency of Board of Public Works, 
Jan. 26. 
Defalcation of treasurer, Jan. 26. 
Need to apply part to academies, Jan. 28. 

Resolution regarding Act of Feb. 24 pledging all over $60,000 to 
academies, Jan. 31. , 

University, rector's report to Literary Fund, Dec. 7. 
William and Mary, on removal, Sept. 22. 
On removal, "Junius" Sept. 26. 
On removal, "Junius," Oct. 3. 
Primary and Intermediate schools, the need of, Jan. 28. 
Primary and Intermediate schools, the need of, Feb. 2. 
1827: Primary Schools, petition to appropriate public lands to education of 
poor, Feb. 1. 
Legislative debate concerning primary schools and universities, Feb. 24. 
Bill concerning, Mar. 8. 
Legislative proceedings concerning, Mar. 15. 
University, bill concerning, Feb. 20. 

Mr. Gordon on using the Literary Fund to complete university, 

Feb. 24. . 
Loan of $25,000 from Literary Fund, Mar. 15. 
Method of examinations, Aug. 14. 
Report on conditions, Dec. 18. 
Teachers, "A scheme of instruction," Mar. 13. 
1828: Jefferson and William B. Giles correspondence, Oct. 23. 

Literary Fund, report of investigating committee on state of losses 
through county commissioners, and suggestions for improvement 
of administration, etc., by Mr. Miller, Dec. 16. 
1829: Lancasterian System, Jan. 31. 

Legislature, summary of acts, Mar. 6. 

Literary Fund, bill to amend passed by Senate, Jan. 1. 

Bill to amend Act to Reduce into one Act All the Acts, etc., ordered 

printed, Jan. 6. 
Read the third time and passed House, Feb. 3. 
Passed the Senate, Feb. 26. 
Primary Schools, private subscriptions to Literary Fund, $45,000, 
Mar. 6. 
Mr. Fitzhugh argues for the Act of 1829, Mar. 6, 31. 
University, letter, "Plebeian," Jan. 17. 
Sectional differences, Watkins Leigh burned in effigy in the west, 

Nov. 24.' 
William and Mary, "A Mountaineer" on the advantages of its improved 
condition, Sept. 29. 
1830: Banks, legislative debate on bonus to colleges, Feb. 9. 

Hampden-Sidney, legislative debate on aid from Literary Fund, Feb. 9. 



2o6 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Literary Fund and Primary Schools, Legislature rejects additional 
appropriation for education of poor, Jan. 2. 
Report of committee to investigate, Jan. 5. 
Default by treasurer of $250,000, Jan. 30. 
Bill to appropriate $2000 annually to Hampden-Sidney, Feb. 9. 
Opposition to above from west, Feb. 9. 
Mr. Scott moves to abolish, Feb. 9. 
Inadequacy of amount for poor schools, Feb. 9. 
1831: Primary Schools, resolution to amend laws regarding, Dec. 13. 
Lottery, petition to build Moresfield Academy, Jan. 28. 
Lottery, Romney, to raise $20,000 for Literary Society, Dec. 20. 
1832: Literary Fund, appropriation from for certain institutions objected to 
by J. C. Cabell, Feb. 2. 
Primary Schools and Academies, bill presented by Cabell, Feb. 2, 
Mar. 6. 
Bill defining duties of school commissioner, Mar. 13, Mar. 15. 
Education suffers from politics — "Publicola," Jan. 21. 
University of Virginia, Cabell replies to personal attack on board of visi- 
tors, Jan. 5, Jan. 7. 
Slaves in Virginia, Jan. 28. 
1833: Hampden-Sidney commencement, Oct. 4. 

Lancasterian School — Richmond — to amend act of 1816 establish- 
ing, Dec. 3. 
Improved methods of teaching at Rumford Academy, Nov. 1. 
1834: Lotteries, bill to suppress, Feb. 20. 

New York system of public education (editorial), Feb. 27. 
Lancasterian School, Richmond, act to amend act of 1816, Mar. n. 
1840: Legislature, Thomas Ritchie appeals to editors to "lash up" on the 
subject of education, Dec. 4. 
"Wheeling" supports Ritchie, Dec. 17. 
Library: Ritchie places New York public school library in hall of 

legislature, Dec. 4. 
Primary Schools, Editorial by Ritchie on need of educating the people, 
Dec. 4. 
Need of a plan and an appropriation, "Wheeling," Dec. 17. 
Causes of retardation of education in Virginia, "Wheeling," Dec. 3. 
1841: Legislative, resolution to appoint committee to devise a Plan of Edu- 
cation, Mar. 9. 
Opposition to committee from Mr. Burwell; Support by Mr. Lee, 

Mar. 9. 
Editorial, "lack doing, much talking legislature," Mar. 26. 
Memorial of Richmond Education Convention presented by Mr. 
Rives, Dec. 23. 
Lexington Educational Convention, Oct. 26. 
Richmond Educational Convention: 

Hampden-Sidney Alumni Society appoints delegates to, Oct. 8. 
Prince Edward County appoints delegates to, Oct. 18. 
Kanawha appoints delegates to, Oct. 14. 



A Bibliography 207 

Lunnenburg appoints delegates to, Nov. 8. 
Halifax appoints delegates to, Dec. 9. 
Christiansburg appoints delegates to, Oct. 25. 
Mecklenburg appoints delegates to, Nov. 15. 
Memorial of Convention presented to Legislature, Dec. 23. 
Illiteracy, Comment on Second Auditor Brown's report, Mar. 20. 
Literary Fund, Mr. Goode moves to dissolve, Feb. 11. 
Auditor's report on state of, Mar. 20. 
Thomas Ritchie protests Mr. Goode's motion, Feb. 13. 
Lynchburg Republican on education, Nov. 12. 
New York Common School Report, Mar. 20. 
Primary Schools, Substitute for Tyler's bill, Dec. 3. 
Conditions in Virginia misrepresented, Mar. 9. 
District system not suited to Virginia, Mar. 9. 
Mr. Lee advocates new system, Mar. 9. 
Defects of old system, J. S. Carrell, Feb. n. 
"E" defends present system, Nov. n. 
"Virginian" replies to "E," Nov. 26. 
"E" answers "Virginian," Dec. 3. 
1842: Deaf and Dumb School at Staunton, Nov. 15. 
Richmond Educational Convention, 1841. 

Report of House committee on Memorial, Feb. 22. 

Tucker Coles objects to District System proposed by convention, 

Feb. 24. 
Education Bill passed House, Nov. 17. 
Education Bill rejected in Senate, Nov. 22. 
Editorial on convention, Nov. 22. 
Address to people of Virginia, a digest of convention's plan for Primary 

School system, Nov. 22. 
Caspar Thiel objects to items of expense of Convention's plan, Dec. 8. 
Illiteracy as shown by 1840 census, Nov. 22. 
Legislature, "Shall we submit to its continued neglect of education?" 

A Letter, July 5. 
Primary Schools, Tucker Coles on Inadvisability of District System 
in Albemarle County, Feb. 24. 
Primary School Bill passed House, Mar. 17. 
Primary School Bill rejected in Senate, Mar. 22. 
New system proposed by Richmond Educational Convention, 
Nov. 22. 
1843: "Lancaster " to Governor McDowell on education in Virginia, Jan. 24, 
Governor McDowell's Message on Education, Jan. 26. 
Primary Schools: popular indifference to education; condition of school- 
houses; preparation of teachers; etc., — letters by "Lancaster," 
Jan. 24, Feb. 2, Feb. 18. 
1844: Virginia Military Institute, Report of Superintendent Francis Smith, 

Feb. 1. 
1876: The Public School System, Wm. H. Ruffner vs. R. L. Dabney, D.D., 
April. 



208 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Richmond Constitutional Whig, Sept. 27. 

Richmond, Virginia, Independent. A Defence of William and Mary College and 
Virginia grammar schools, June 28, 1786. 



III. Contemporary Histories, Pamphlets, Addresses, 
and Letters 

Beverly, Robert. The History of Virginia in Four Parts. Printed for B. and 

S. Tooke, 1722. 
British and Foreign School Society Report of Joseph Lancaster Schools, 1798- 

1815. One volume. See Report 4 of Royal Lancasterian Institute for the 

Education of the Poor, 181 2. London, Longman and Co., 18 13. 
Burk, J. History of Virginia. Four volumes. Petersburg, 1804-16. 
Burwell, William M. Address before the Society of Alumni of the University 

of Virginia at their Annual Meeting, 1847. Twenty-seven pages. Richmond, 

Shepherd and Colin, 1847. 
Caldwell, Joseph. A Tour through a Part of Virginia in 1808, in a Series of 

Letters. Printed for the author, New York, H. C. South wick, 1809. 
Campbell, Charles. History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia. 

Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott and Co., i860. 
Chamberlayne, Churchill Gibson. The Vestry Book and Register of Bristol 

Parish, Va., 1 720-1 789. Privately printed, Richmond, 1898. 
Fithian, Philip Vickers. Journals and Letters, 1767-74. Princeton Press, 1900. 
Ford, Paul Leicester. Jefferson, Thomas, Third President of the United States. 

Writings, 1 760-1826. Ten volumes. New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-9. 
Fothergill, Gerald. A List of Ministers and School-masters, Immigrants to 

America, 1 790-181 1. London, E. Stock, 1907. 
Garnett, James Mercer, 17 70-1 843. Female Education. Lectures delivered 

to Mrs. Garnett's pupils at Elmwood, Essex County. T. W. White, Rich- 
mond. Fourth edition, 1825. 
. Obstacles to Education. Four lectures delivered before the Fredericksburg 

Lyceum; Southern Literary Messenger, I, 725; II, 436, 477, 561, 613. 
. Literary Associations. Address delivered at Hampden-Sidney College, 

Southern Literary Messenger, I, 282-290. 
Grigsby, Hugh Blair. The Virginia Convention of 1829-30. An Address before 

the Virginia Historical Society, 1853. Virginia Historical Reporter, 1854-60, 

Vol. I, 15-116. 
Howison, Robert Reid. A History of Virginia from its Discovery and Settle- 
ment by Europeans, to the Present Time. Two volumes. Philadelphia, 1848. 
Jefferson, Thomas. Notes on the State of Virginia. Richmond, Va., J. W. 

Randolph, 1853, printed from Stockdale's edition, 1787. 
Jefferson, Thomas, and Cabell, J. C. Early History of the University of 

Virginia as contained in their Letters. Richmond, Va., J. W. Randolph, 1856. 
Jones, Hugh. The Present State of Virginia. London, printed for J. Clarke at 

the Bible under the Royal Exchange, 1724. 
Kercheval, S. History of the Valley of Virginia. Winchester, 1833. 
Letters from Virginia, translated from the French. Baltimore, 1816. 



A Bibliography 209 

Martin, Joseph. A New and Comprehensive Gazetteer of Virginia ... to which 
is added a History of Virginia from the First Settlement to 1754, with an 
abstract of events from that period to the period of Independence. ... By 
a citizen of Virginia (W. H. Brokenborough) . Charlottesville, J. Martin, 1835. 

Maxwell, William. Oration on the Improvement of the People [of Virginia]. 
Spoken before the Literary and Philosophic Society of Hampden-Sidney at 
the third anniversary meeting in the Brick Church, Prince Edward County, 
September 26, 1826. Printed by Thomas G. Broughton, 1826. Richmond 
Library. 

Meade, Rev. William, D.D. Pastoral Letter on Schools and Teachers. Pam- 
phlet. Washington, G. S. Gidion, 1858. 

. Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia. Two volumes. Phila- 
delphia, J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1891. 

Mercer, Charles Fenton. Discourse on Popular Education: an address given 
in a church in Princeton, 1826, at the commencement of the College of New 
Jersey. Delivered before the American Whig and Cliosophic Society. Prince- 
ton, 1826. Congressional Library. 

Ruffner, William H. Circulars — Report of Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
tion — 1870-9. One volume. 

. The Public School System, Richmond Enquirer, 1876. 

Semple, R. S. History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists. Richmond, Va., 
1810. 

Sherman and Smith's Gazetteer of the United States, 1840. 

Smith, Gen. Francis H. [Virginia Military Institute]. Schools and School- 
masters of Virginia in the Olden Time. Address before the Educational 
Association of Virginia in Alexandria, July u, 1873. Richmond, Clemmitt 
Jones, Printers, 1874. Pamphlet, 15 pp. 

Stith, William. The History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Vir- 
ginia. Williamsburg, Va., William Parks, 1747. 

Thomas, Joseph. A Discourse on Sunday Schools, delivered at Kernstown, 
Oct. 18, 1818. Winchester, Virginia, 1818. N. Y. Library. 

Thompson, John Reuben. Address before the Literary Society of Washington 
College, 1850. Circulars, Report Superintendent Public Instruction, 1871. 

Tucker, George. Life of Thomas Jefferson, with parts of his correspondence. 
Philadelphia, Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 1837. 

Wansey, Henry. An Excursion to the United States of North America in the 
Summer of 1794. Salisbury, 1798. 15 pp. 

IV. Magazines, Reports of Societies, etc. 

Academician, 1818-1820. Semi-weekly. Edited by Albert and John Pickett and 

published by the Incorporated Society of the Teachers of New York. One 

volume. 
Oulds' Report on Lancasters' School at Georgetown, D. C, Nov. 18, 181 8, 

270. Report of the Directors of the Literary Fund of Virginia to the Virginia 

Legislature, December, 1815, 39, 52. 
American Annals of Education, 1830-39. Published in Boston by Carter and 

Hendee, later by Ticknor and Allen. 



210 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Education in Virginia, Reprint from London Quarterly Journal, July, 1831. 

Vol. 3 : 63-9. 
Institute of Virginia, September 29, 1831. Vol. 3: 596. 
Second Anniversary of Institute of Education, September 25, 1834. Vol. 4: 

529- 
Ambulatory Schools. Vol. 5: 572. 

Measures passed by the Virginia Institute of Education. Vol. 5: 45. 
School Funds. Vol. 5 : 44. 
American Education Society, Quarterly Register and Journal, July, 1827-May, 1843. 

Published by B. B. Edwards, secretary of the Society, Andover and Boston. 
Elementary Instruction in Virginia. Vol. 3: 122, 284. 
Education and Literary Institutions: Virginia, — containing a reprint from the 

London Quarterly Journal of Education for July, 1831. Vol. 5: 321-5. 
Memoirs of Jonathan P. Cushing, George W. Dame, 1838. Vol. 11: 113-28. 
Barnard's American Journal of Education, 1855-1881. 31 octavo volumes. Now 

published and sold by C. W. Bardeen, secretary of the Henry Barnard Pub- 
lishing Co. 
Tables of Population and Educational Statistics, 1701-1885. Vol. 1: 364, 470. 
School Funds and Institutions of Education supported wholly or in part by 

public funds, Martin Dawson. Vol. 1 : 445. 
Public Schools in the United States: section Virginia — Report of Second 

Auditor, J. L. Jackson, 1854-5, containing "Address of Henry A. Wise to 

his Late Constituents," Vol. 2: 557-61. 
Establishment or Revival of Public Schools, 1818-30. Vol. 2: 20. 
Josiah Holbrook, — Labors in Virginia. Vol. 8: 238. 
Schools as They were Sixty Years Ago, Dr. William Darlington et al. Vol. 13: 

123-44, 74i. 
An Old Field Academy in Virginia, John Davis. Vol. 13: 748. 
Sunday Schools and the American Sunday School Union. Vol. 15: 705. 
Educational Conventions of Virginia. Vol. 16: 173. 
Statistics of i860. Vol. 18: 467-69. 
Schools for Colored People. Vol. 19: 394. 

Illiteracy in Virginia as revealed by the Census of 1840. Vol. 19: 842. 
Common and Public Education, 1800-70. Vol. 24: 225. 
Educational Journal of Virginia. Organ of the Virginia Educational Association. 

After 1869 edited by C. H. Winston and John Minor of the University of 

Virginia. 
Sketch of William H. Ruffner, Mrs. Barclay, May 1, 1902. 
Educational Review, 1891-1917. Fifty-one volumes. Ed. Rev. Pub. Co., Rail- 
way, N. J. 
Private Education in Virginia, Wm. Baird. Vol. 15: 339-50. 
Farmer's Register, 1833-42. A monthly devoted to the improvement of practice 

and support of interest in agriculture. Edmund Ruffin, editor and proprietor, 

Petersburg, Virginia. Nine volumes. Richmond library. 
Origin of the Literary Fund, James Barbour. 1836, 685. 
Old Dominion Magazine, 1870-3. Monthly, published by M. W. Hazelwood, 

Richmond, Virginia. 
Historical Sketches of Virginia, Minor. Vol. 4, March 15, 1870. 



A Bibliography 211 

Popular Science Monthly, 1872. New York, D. Appleton and Co. 
The Early Free Schools of America, Alice Rhine. Vol. 16: 663. 
Randolph-Macon College, The John P. Branch Historical Papers. Published 

annually by the department of history. Richmond, E. Waddy Co., 1901. 
William Henry Ruffner and the Rise of the Public Free Schools in Virginia, — 

E. L. Fox. Vol. 3, no. 2, 124-44. 
James Barbour, W. S. Long. Vol. 4, June 1914, 34. 
Southern Literary Messenger, 1834-64. Thirty-eight volumes. T. W. White, 

printer, Richmond, Virginia. John R. Thompson, editor, 1856. 
Literary Associations to Promote Education, Address delivered before the 

Institute of Education, Hampden-Sidney College, June, 1834, James M. 

Garnett. Vol. 1: 282-91. 
On Elevating the Standards of Female Education, Address before the American 

Lyceum, Mrs. Sigourney. Vol. 1: 169-70. 
Annals of Education Recommended. Vol. 1: 205. 
Common Schools of New England, their Benefits, some Particulars of their 

Organization. Letters from a Virginian. Vol. 1: 86, 275. 
Introductory Lecture to a Course on Obstacles to Education. Delivered before 

the Fredericksburg Lyceum two years before, James M. Garnett. Vol. 1: 

725-34. Succeeding lectures, Vol. 2: 436, 477-86, 561-8, 612-22. 
Address on Education, Lucian Minor. Address delivered before the Institute 

of Education, Hampden-Sidney College, June, 1835. Vol. 2: 17-24. 
Biography of Jonathan P. Cushing. Vol. 2: 163. 
Popular Education, Its Value. Vol. 2: 88. 

Thoughts on Sunday Schools and Sunday School Books, "W." Vol. 4: 224-7. 
On Female Education. Vol. 6: 45. 
Education in Virginia, G. E. Dabney. Vol. 7: 631-7. 
Popular Education, Address before the Richmond Educational Convention, 

James M. Garnett. Vol. 8: n 5-21. 
College Conventions of 1840. Vol. 10: 121. 
Education in the Southern and Western States. Vol. 11: 603-7. 
On Public Education in Virginia. Vol. 13: 685-9. 
The Education of the People, "S. S. R." Vol. 14: 597-602. 
Social Systems of Virginia, Henry A. Washington. Vol. 14: 63-81. 
Colonial Life in Virginia, John R. Thompson. Vol. 20: 330-42. 
Free Schools and the University of Virginia; Education a Nation's Defense. 

Vol. 20: 65-75. 
The Late Joseph C. Cabell, John Hampden Pleasants. Vol. 22: 394. 
Colleges in Virginia. Vol. 24: 161, 241,401. 
Progress of Education in Virginia. Vol. 24: 161, 241, 401; Vol. 25: 53, 62, 

131, 133- 
Education After the War, Letter from E. S. Joynes, professor at William and 

Mary, to W. J. Palmer, April 20, 1863. Vol. 37: 485-92. 
Southern Quarterly Review, 1842-55. Vol. 1: 25, 27. 

Old series published by Burgess and James, 166 Royal St., New Orleans. Vols. 

17-27 also numbered new series Vols. 1-11. From 1843, published by Walker 

and Richards, Charleston. 
Education in Europe, 1845. Vol. 11: 1. 



212 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

"The North and the South," 1849. Vol. 15: 292. 

Free School System in South Carolina. Vol. 16: 31. 

What is Education? — Thomas Curtis, address before Teachers Association. 

Vol. 20: 343. 
Domestic Histories of the South. Vol. 21: 525. 
Medical Schools in the South. Vol. 22: 235. 
Instruction in Schools and Colleges — address at opening of a Free School, — 

James Simmons. Vo'. 22:460. 
Destinies of the South. Vol.27: 199. 
Education in America. Vol. 24: 54. 
Common Schools, F. A. P. Vol. 25: 471. 
Southern Review, 1828-32. Charleston, S. C, published by A. E. Miller. Vols. 1-8. 
Review of Address by Thomas S. Grimke on "Classical Learning," by H. S. 

Legare. Vol. 1: 1-49. 
Education in Germany in the years 1820-21-22, John Russell. Vol. 7. 
Agrarian and Education Systems. Vol. 6: 1-31. 
Southern Review — New Series: 

My Schools and School Masters, 1878. Vol. 3: 121. 
Public School Education in the North. Vol. 4: 1. 
System of Common Schools. Vol. 6: 453. 
Southern Enterprise, 1833, being a brief statement of facts in relation to the 

Enterprise which the American Sunday School Union resolved to prosecute 

in the Southern States. Philadelphia, 28 pages. 
United States Commissioner of Education Reports, general. 
The American Common School in New England, 1 790-1840. Report, 1894-5. 

Vol. 2: Chap. 39. 
Education in Retrospect, 1875. 
Education in the Northwest during the First Half Century of the Republic, 

1 790-1840. Report, 1894-5. Chap. 38. 
Organization ... of State Systems of Common School Education in the North 

Atlantic States from 1830-65. Report, 1897-8. Vol. 1, Chap. n. 
Development of the Common Schools in the Western States, 1830-65. Report, 

1898-9. Vol. 1: 357-45°- 
The Organization and Development of the American Common Schools in the 

Atlantic and Central States of the South, 1830-60. Report, 1899-1900. 
Common Schools in the Southern States beyond the Mississippi River, 1830- 

1860. Report, 1900-01. Vol. 1: Chap. 10: 357, 402. 
Virginia Antiquary, Lower Norfolk County, 1897. 
Virginia Historical Register and Literary Companion, 1848-53. Edited by William 

Maxwell. Richmond, Virginia. Printed for the proprietor by MacFarlane 

and Fergusson, 1848-53. 6 volumes. 
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 1898. Published quarterly by the 

Virginia Historical Society. 23 volumes. 
Eaton Free School, — abstract land patents. Vol. 1 : 216, 326, 348; Vol. 2: 414, 

419; Vol. 6: 93. 
Free Schools and the Church in the Seventeenth Century, Commodore Walter 

Brooke. Vol. 1: 326. 
Legacies to Free Schools. Vol. 1: 297, 391, 236. 



A Bibliography 213 

Indentures. Vol. 2: 345, 236. 

Servant Teachers to Robt. Carter. Vol. 2 : 236. 

Free Schools in Court Houses. Vol. 3: 193. 

Northumberland County approves petition for Free School, 1652. Vol. 10: 318. 

Moravian Diary of Travels through Virginia, 1748, edited by J. Heike. Vol. 

n: 113, 225, 37o; Vol. 12: 55, 134, 271. 
Quesnays Academy, 1786. Vol. 11: 253. 
Huguenots in Virginia, Vestry Book, King William Parish, 1705. Vol. 11: 

219, 293. 
Early Westward Movement of Virginia, 1722-34, as shown by proceedings of 

colonial council. Vol. 12: 237. 
Brafferton Indian School. Vol. 13: 209, 250. 
A Defense of Virginia Grammar Schools, Philomathes. Reprint Virginia 

Gazette and Am. Adv., June, 26, 1786. Vol. 19: 13. 
The Randolph Manuscript, from original. Vol. 19: 342; Vol. 20: 115. 
Extracts from the Report of the Royal Historical Manuscripts Commission — 

The Danby Papers (p. 113), Oct. 21, 1702. Vol. 22: 422. 
The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine, 1818-28. Edited by John H. 

Rice, Richmond. William Gray, Printer, Eleven Volumes. 
Female Education. Vol. 1: 332. 

Opposition in Ireland to new system of education (Sunday schools). Vol. 1 : 523. 
Sunday School in Lynchburg. Vol. 1: 143. 
Classical Education. Vol. 1: 193. 

Objections to Present Plan of Education and some Suggestions of a Better. 
' Vol. 2: 177. 

On Choice of Instructors. Vol. 3: 265. 
Sabbath School at Hampden-Sidney College. Vol. 3: 95. 

in County of Essex. Vol. 3: 238. 

in Fincastle. Vol. 3: 477. 

revival. Vol. 3: 598. 

at Brainard's. Vol. 3: 243. 
University of Virginia. Vol. 3: 49, 587. 
Sunday School at Goochland, Prince Ed. County. Vol. 2: 436. 

in Henrico. Vol. 2: 382. 

in Jefferson. Vol. 2: 529. 

in Livingston. Vol. 2: 431. 

Union Society of Richmond. Vol. 2: 290, 340, 433. 
The Means of Religious Improvement in Fredericksburg. Vol. 5: 166. 
On Sabbath Schools. Vol. 5: 103. 
The Literary Fund of Virginia, — letters by "Iota." Vol. 5: 88-97, 132-8, 

184-9, 235-42. 
Means of Religious Improvement in Petersburg. Vol. 5: 111. 
State of Religion in Virginia. Vol. 5: 601. 

Plan to educate thirty thousand by Sabbath Schools. Vol. 5: 95. 
Application of Literary Fund of Virginia, — a "Friend of Poor." Vol. 6: 281-6. 
Literary Fund, "Iota" (reply to a "Friend of the Poor"). Vol. 6: 425-32. 
Letters on Education. Vol. 6: 173-7. 
Journeys in New England. Vol. 6: 86, 259, 313. 



2i4 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

A Literary Discourse before Hampden-Sidney College, Sept. 24, 1824, by Rev. 

J. H. Rice. Vol. 8: 1-9, 57-65. 
American Sunday School Union. Vol. 8: 395. 
Education in New York. Vol.8: 101. 

Primary Schools, by "A School Commissioner." Vol. 8: 367-74. 
Remarks on a School Commissioner, by a "Friend of Learning." Vol. 8: 541-8. 
The Literary Fund, "Philodemus" (seven letters). Vol. 9: 83-6, 133-7, I 96- 

201, 205-20, 315-18, 35o-4- 
Sabbath Schools. Vol. 9: 332. 
Sunday School Union. Vol. 10: 335. 
Sabbath Schools a Cause of Alarm. Vol. 11: 245. 
Virginia School Report, 1871. First Annual Report of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction, William H. Ruffner. 
Past Primary School Systems of Virginia, 89-92. 
Public Education in Virginia, 89 (for growth of Literary Fund). 
Virginia School Report, 1885. Fifteenth Annual Report of Superintendent of 

Public Instruction, R. R. Farr. 
History of County and City Schools of Virginia. Part Third: 48-291. (Only 

occasional reference to pre-civil war period and practically no appeal to source 

material. Several interesting reminiscences given. Valuable for discussion, 

of traditions primarily.) 
West Virginia Historical Magazine — sketch of Wm. H. Ruffner by his daughter, 

Mrs. Barclay, Oct. 1902. 
William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, — 1893-1918. 

Edited by Lyon G. Tyler, published in Williamsburg, Virginia, later in Rich- 
mond. Twenty-three volumes. 
Grammar and Mattey Practice and Model School founded by Mary Whaley, 

1706. Vol. 3: 39, 173; Vol. 4: 3-15. 
Free Schools: Peasley's, Kingman's, Reid's, Starke's, Yorktown. Vol. 4: 

286, 94, 269, 197, 7. 
Free Schools of Isle of Wight County (Smith, King, Moon, Stith). Vol. 5: 

112-17. 
Education in Colonial Virginia, Lyon G. Tyler. Vol. 5: 219-23; 6: 1-7, 71-86; 

7: 1-9, 65-77. 
Will of Henry King. Vol. 7: 237. 
Schools in Warwick County, E. W. Jones. Vol. 6: 220. 
Eaton School. Vol. 9: 20. 

School Teachers, Extracts Virginia Gazette, Dec. i, 1752. Vol. 12: 178-9. 
Charity School in Williamsburg, 1778. Vol. 14: 34. 
Free Schools in Virginia. Vol. 17: 35, 244-7. 
Historical and Genealogical Notes, James Mercer Garnett. Vol. 17: 22-??. 



V. Secondary Sources in Recent Studies, Books, 
Magazines, Articles, etc. 

Adams, Francis. The Free School System of the United States. London, Chap- 
man and Hall, 1875. 



A Bibliography 215 

Adams, Herbert Baxter. Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia. A 
monograph. U. S. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1888, No. 1. 

. College of William and Mary, 1887. Washington, Government Printing 

Office, 1887. 

Ambler, Charles Henry. Cleavage between Eastern and Western Virginia. 
American Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, July, 1910. 

. Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776-1861. University of Chicago Press, 

1910. 

. Thomas Ritchie: a Study in Virginia Politics. Richmond, Bell Book and 

Stationery Co., 191 2. 

Beard, Charles Austen. Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy. New- 
York, Macmillan Co., 191 5. 

Boone, Richard Gause. Education in the United States. Its History from the 
Earliest Settlements. New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1889. 

Brown, Alexander. English Politics in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 
Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1895. 

Bruce, Philip Alexander. Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth 
Century. Two volumes. New York, Macmillan Co., 1895. 

. Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. Two vol- 
umes. New York and London, G. Putnam and Sons, 1910. 

. Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. Printed for the author 

by Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond, Virginia, 1907. 

. Recollections of My Plantation Teachers. South Atlantic Quarterly, XVI, 

Bunnell, Elizabeth Hankinson. James Madison on Education. Unpublished 
M. A. Thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1902. 

Calhoun, Arthur W. A Social History of the American Family. Cleveland, 
Clark, 191 7. Vol. 1. 

Cork, J. F. and Morgan, B. S. History of Education in West Virginia. Charles- 
ton, West Virginia, Moses W. Donnally, Public Printer, 1913. 

Dexter, Edwin Grant. History of Education in the United States. New York, 
Macmillan Co., 1904. 

Dyer, G. W. Democracy in the South before the Civil War. 1905. 

Earle, Mrs. Alice Morse. Child Life in Colonial Days. New York, Macmillan 
Co., 1899. 

Eckenrode, Hamilton J. The Political History of Virginia during the Recon- 
struction. Johns Hopkins University Studies, 1904. 

. The Revolution in Virginia. Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 

1916. 

Fiske, John. Old Virginia and Her Neighbors. Two volumes. Boston and New 
York, Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1897. 

Fitch, Sir Joshua Girling. Educational Aims and Methods. New York and 
London, Macmillan Co., 1900. 

Foote, William Henry.' Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical. 
Philadelphia, Williams Martien, 1850. Second series, J. B. Lippincott and 
Co, 1855. 

Garnett, James Mercer, 1840-1915. Hon. James Mercer Garnett: An Address 
delivered at Tappahannock, Essex County, Virginia, June, 1898. 



216 The Free School Idea in Virginia 

Garnett, James Mercer, 1840-1915. Biographical Sketch of Hon. Charles 
Fen ton Mercer, 1 778-1858. Privately printed by Whittet and Shepperson, 
Richmond, Virginia, 191 1. 

. University of Virginia, its History, Influences, etc. Editorial staff: 

Dr. P. B. Barringer, James Mercer Garnett and Hon. Roswell, Charlottesville, 
1914. 

Harris, J. Henry. Robert Raikes, the Man and his Work. Biographical notes 
collected by Joseph Harris, unpublished letters by Robert Raikes, letters 
from the Raikes family. Bristol, J. W. Arrowsmith, London, Simpkins, 
Hamilton, and Kent Co. (no date). 
V Heatwole, Cornelius J. A History of Education in Virginia. New York, 
Macmillan Co., 1916. 

Henderson, John Cleaves. Thomas Jefferson's Views on Public Education. 
New York and London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1890. 

Henneman, J. B. Historic Elements in Virginia Education and Literary Effort. 
Richmond, 1892. 

Knight, Edgar W. Evolution of Education in Virginia. Sewanee Review, Janu- 
ary, 1916. 

=. Reconstruction and Education in Virginia. South Atlantic Quarterly, 

January and April, 19 16. Vol. XV. 

. Influence of Reconstruction on Education in the South. New York, 

Teachers College, 19 13. 

Mumford, Beverley Bland. Virginia's Attitude toward Slavery and Secession. 
New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1909. 

Maddox, William A. Elementary Education in Virginia during the Early Nine- 
teenth Century. Unpublished M. A. Essay, Teachers College Library, 191 1. 

Magoun, Rev. George A. The Source of American Education. New Englander, 
Vol. 36: 445. 

Mayo, Rev. Amory Dwight. Horace Mann and the Great Revival of the American 
Common School, 1830-50. Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education, 
1896-7, i: 713. 

. Historical Sketch of State School Systems. Report, Commissioner of Edu- 
cation, 1876. 

. Development of the American Common Schools in the Atlantic and Central 

States of the South, 1830-60. Report, Commissioner of Education, 1899- 
1900, i: 427. 

. American Common Schools in the Southern States during the First Half- 
century of the Republic. Report, Commissioner of Education, 1895-6, 
i: 267. 

. Some Historical Documents Bearing upon Common School Education in 

Virginia and South Carolina previous to the Civil War. Report, Commis- 
sioner of Education, 1899-1900, i: 381. 

. The Beginnings of the Common School System in the South. Report, 

Commissioner of Education, 1896-7, ii: 1379. 

. Sketch of Virginia, 1800-1. Report, Commissioner of Education, 1899- 

1900, Vol. i. 

McCabe, Capt. Gordon. Virginia Schools Before and After the Revolution: an 
address delivered before the Alumni of the University of Virginia, June 27, 



A Bibliography 217 

1888. Published by a standing order of the society. Charlottesville, Vir- 
ginia, Chronicle Steam Book and Job Office, 1890. 
Miller, Thomas C. History of Education in West Virginia. West Virginia School 

Report, 1907. 
Monroe, Paul. A Textbook in the History of Education. New York, Macmillan 

Co., 1905. 

. A Cyclopedia of Education. New York, Macmillan Co., 1911-15. 

Neill, Edward Duffield, D.D. The Earliest Efforts to promote Education in 

English North America. Macalester College Contributions, St. Paul, Minn., 

1890. 

. Virginia Schools and Early Ministers. Hours at Home. Vol. 6: 603. 

. The History of Education in Virginia during the Seventeenth Century. 

Washington, Government Printing Office, 1867. 
Parton, James. Thomas Jefferson, a Reformer of Old Virginia. Printed in At- 
lantic Monthly, July, 1872. 
Perry, William Stevens. Papers Relating to the Church in Virginia, 1850- 

1776. Printed in 1870. 
Schuricht, Herman. History of the German Element in Virginia. Baltimore, 

1898. 
Slaughter, Rev. Philip. A History of Bristol Parish, Richmond, Va., 1879. 
Smith, E. B. Education in the South: An Address. Circular of Information 

No. 1 : 1900. Washington Government Printing Office. 
Smith, Francis H. The Schools and Schoolmasters of Virginia in the Olden 

Times. Richmond, 1878. 
Tyler, Lyon G. Vide William and Mary College Quarterly Magazine. 
. The College of William and Mary in Virginia: Its History and Work. 

Whittet and Shepperson, 1907. 
Wayland, John Walter. The German Element of the Shenandoah Valley of 

Virginia. Charlottesville, Virginia, Michie Co., 1907. 
Wertenbaker, Thomas J. Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia, or the Origin and 

Development of the Social Classes of the Old Dominion. Charlottesville, 

Virginia, Michie Co., 19 10. 
Whitehill, Alexander R. History of Education in West Virginia. Bureau of 

Education Bulletin. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1902. 



Addenda: Publications issued after this study was 
sent to press 

Morrison, A. J. The Beginnings of Public Education in Virginia, 1 776-1860. 

Richmond, 191 7. A supplement to the Report of the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction. 
Stanard, Mrs. Mary Mann Page Newton. Colonial Virginia: its People and 

Customs. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 191 7. 



INDEX 



Academies, fight for share in Literary 
Fund, 91; number in state, 192; 
sharing in Literary Fund, 187, 192. 

Act of 1776 guarantees Church its 
holdings, 42. 

Act of 1796, Jefferson's, its failure, 15, 
16; referred to, 70, 188. 

Act of 1802, an Act concerning Glebe 
Lands and Churches, 42, 43; early 
basis of common schools, 188. 

Act of 1810, creating Literary Fund, 48. 

Act of 181 1, creating Literary Fund 
Board, 49. 

Act of 1818, referred to, n, 162, 183; 
passage of, 74; provisions of, 74; 
Judge Roane on defects in, 75; 
operation of, 77, 78; repugnance to 
among the poor, 79; resolution 
abolishing board of school commis- 
sioners, 79; value of, 82, 83; defects 
of, 90; effect on teacher supply, 108; 
rebirth to prejudice, 184; an evo- 
lution of Poor Law, 190. Vide 
Primary schools, also Counties. 

Act of 1821 and 1834, permitting 
academies to share in Literary Fund, 

Act of 1829, The District Free School 
Act, 90; provisions analyzed, 96 ff.; 
reasons given by counties for failure 
to adopt, ioiff.; three counties 
experiment with, 99 ff.; referred to, 
156, 162; defects in, why Virginia 
did not adopt, 189. 

Act of 1 84 1 creating a commission to 
devise a state school system, 136; 
report of commission, 137. 

Act of 1870, provisions of, 171; written 
by Ruffner, 172. 

Acts of 1846 analyzed: for District 
System, 154 ff.; for Amended Pri- 
mary System, 154 ff.; Special Act 
for certain counties, 154, 157 ff.; re- 
ferred to, 162; counties ask exemp- 
tion from, 159. 

Alexandria, 25. 

Ambler, C. H., cited, 19. 

Ambulatory Schools, so-called, 113. 

Amended Primary School System, vide 
Acts of 1846. 



Anderson Seminary, bequest for, 29. 

Apathy, a cause of retardation, 16, 96, 
162, 180, 186. 

Apprenticeship, regulated by colony, 
6; extended to wealthy, 7; advo- 
cated by commissioners, 75, 84, 85. 

Aristocracy, foundations of, 4. 

Arrearages in county quotas, 81 (note). 

Associations for Promotion of Public 
Education, cf. Cooperative Edu- 
cational Association, 150, 194. 

Auditors' reports, i860, 166. Vide 
Brown. 

Banks, Literary Fund, proposed by 
Mercer, 65 ff.; opposed by Black- 
burn, 65; Ritchie on, 69. 

Baptist Societies, 19; summarily dealt 
with, 42. 

Barbour, Governor James, advocates lot- 
tery, 45 (note), 49 ff.; part' in creation 
of Literary Fund, 48; referred to, 87. 

Barnard, Henry, referred to, 127. 

Barrier, The Great, the Alleghany and 
Blue Ridge mountains, 18, 181. 

Bassett, Representative Burwell, and 
Lancaster, 29. 

Battaile, Lawrence, Sunday School, 
on estate of, 34. 

Bequests for free schools, colonial, 1, 
6, 8, 9, 45; post-Revolutionary, 45. 
Vide Free school foundations. 

Berkeley, Sir William, report to Lord 
Commissioners, 1, 2, 179. 

Bill for Diffusion of Knowledge, 13, 188. 

Blackburn, Mr., referred to, 65. 

Booker, moves to dissolve Literary 
Fund, 69 (note). 

Brown, Alexander, quoted, 1 (note). 

Brown, James, Jr., opens account 
known as Literary Fund, 48; annual 
reports remarkable documents, 82; 
on counties under the district system, 
100, 1 01; compares with Northern 
states, 100, 101; leads crusade for 
better methods and more competent 
teachers, 115, 116; on condition of 
schools in 1839, 134; defends Lit- 
erary Fund schools, 134; attacked 
by Richmond Whig, 135; succeeded 



219 



220 



Index 



by William M. Monroe, 163; at- 
tacked by King William County, 
163. Vide Counties, Reports. 

Bruce, Philip A., referred to, 8. 

Burwell, opposes district plan, 136. 
quoted, 189. 

Cabell, Governor George, quoted, 47. 

Cabell, Joseph C, part in creation of 
Literary Fund, 48 (note); repre- 
sentative of Jefferson in the Senate, 
57; writing as a Friend of Science, 
leads fight for Jefferson's bills, 
1816-17, 73; clerk of Nelson County, 
interprets law of 18 18, 77; referred 
to, 87; visits Yverdun and intro- 
duces Pestalozzianism to Nelson 
County teachers, 119. Vide also 
Jefferson. 

Calvinistic conception of education 
and the state, 108. 

Campbell, Alexander, introduces reso- 
lution for common schools, 95; 
champion of West, 95; on apathy 
of the masses, 96 (note); com- 
pares needs of East and West, 96; 
address at Clarksburg Convention, 
138. 

Campbell, Governor George, on illit- 
eracy, 128, 129. 

Capital, removal to Staunton, 72. 

Capitation tax for schools, 193. 

Carter, Colonel John, son to be ap- 
prenticed, 7; on tutors, 106; ex- 
pense of slave labor, 183 (note). 

Carter, James G., referred to, 62, 127. 

Census, 1790, 93; 1840, analyzed, 131; 
i860, 197. 

Central Committee of Education, 162. 

Centralization of school government, 
134, 174, 187. Vide Jefferson, Mercer. 

Charity Schools, referred to, 11; 
motive of, 23, 24; established in 
towns, 25; supported by George 
Washington, 25, 26; made possible 
through Lancasterian method, 26; 
in Fredericksburg, 26; sharing in 
Literary Fund, 25, 189. 

Charlottesville, tax for public school, 
1806, 46. Vide University. 

Christiansburg Convention, 141. 

Church, English Established, admin- 
isters education in the colony, 6, 
103, 104; glebes seized, 42; trained 
leaders, 42; churches destroyed, 43. 

Civil War, 10, n, 170, 171, 194, 196. 

Clarksburg Convention. Vide Con- 
ventions. 

Clinton, Governor DeWitt, quoted, 33; 
referred to by Jefferson, 86. 



Code of 1849 attempts to create a 
state system, 162, 194. 

Coles, Tucker, attacks plan of Rich- 
mond convention, 146; proposes 
a better plan, 147. 

Colleges, Convention of, 148; sharing 
in Literary Fund, 192. 

Colston, leads fight for Literary P'und 
Banks, 65. 

Commercial Congress. Southern, 1850, 
180. 

Commercial growth and common 
schools, 195. 

Commissioners, school, created, 74; 
move to abolish, 79; annual reports 
on school progress, vide Counties. 

Communication, means of, limited 
16, 104, 179. 

Consolidation, period of, 175. 

"Constituent, A," "Who doubts," 
etc., 70 ff. 

Control, local vs. central summarized, 
187. Vide Centralization, also Jef- 
ferson. 

Conventions, Constitutional, 1829, 
93 ff.; secession, 1861, 168; Under- 
wood, 171. 

Conventions, Educational, Clarksburg, 
138, 139; College, 148; Lexington, 
141; Richmond (1841), 141, 143, 148- 
51; Christiansburg, 141; result of, 
154 ff.; Richmond (1845), I 49~5 2 ; 
Richmond (1856-57), 167, 168. 

Cooperative Educational Association 
referred to, 134, 139, 150, 184. 

Cooperation in communities neces- 
sary to success of schools, 22, 186. 
Vide Jefferson. 

Cooper, Thomas, replies to Governor 
Nichols, 64. 

Counties, Colonial and post-Revo- 
lutionary bequests in, 8, 44 ff.; 
Sunday schools in, 31, 33 ff.; com- 
missioners' report: on Literary Fund 
schools, 83 ff.; on experiment with 
district system, 99, 102; defining 
indigence, 77 ff., 102 ff.; on certifica- 
tion of teachers, 116; on uniform 
text-books, 116; on Acts of 1846, 
157 ff., 161 ff., on "Schools for All 
Classes," 166, 194; on length of school 
term in, 196., 
Counties referred to: 

Accomac, 9, 45, 159, 164, 194; 
Albemarle, 44, 45, 158 ff., 161 ff., 
194; Alleghany, 85, 142; Am- 
herst, 101, 123, 196; Appomattox, 
163; Augusta, 142; Bath, 140; 
Bedford, 115; Botetourt, 123, 
140; Berkeley, 102, 103; Brooke, 



Index 



221 



95, 115; Buckingham, 123; Cabell, 
158; Campbell, 84, 142; Charlotte, 
39, 102; Charles City, 8, 116; 
Chesterfield, 45, 73, 84, 102; 
Cumberland, 99, 102; Elizabeth 
City, 1, 164, 165, 194, 195; Essex, 
33, 35, 43; Fairfax, 155; Fayette, 
196; Fluvanna, 160, 165, 166; 
Franklin, 83, 99, 116, 164; Giles, 
103, 160, 161; Gloucester, 81, 
123, 161; Goochland, 37, 101; 
Grayson, 83, 196; Greenbriar, 
101; Halifax, 142; Hanover, 31, 
83, 103; Harrison, 83, 142, 196; 
Henrico, 83, 103, 142; Henry, 
155, 157, 158; James City, 44, 
102, 155; Jefferson, 158, 164 ff., 
194; Kanawha, 102, 142, 155, 
158, 164, 194; Kentucky, 43; 
King and Queen, 8, 9, 42, 73; 
King George, 43, 155, 158, 164 ff., 
194; King William, 161, 163; 
Lancaster, 154; Lee, 174, 196; 
Lewis, 161; Louisa, 82, 150; 
Loudoun, 102, 103, 155; Lunen- 
burg, 82, 142; Madison, 196; 
Marion, 160, 196; Marshall, 158; 
Mason, 81; Mathews, 39; Meck- 
lenburg, 48, 142; Middlesex, 44, 
45, 102; Monroe, 99, 164; Mo- 
nongalia, 83; Montgomery, 101, 
196; Morgan, 101; Nansemond, 
9, 44, 45, 83, 151; Nelson, 37, 
45, 77, 120; New Kent, 44, 116, 
142; Nicholas, 83, 102; Norfolk, 
28, 39, 163 ff., 165, 166, 194; 
Northampton 39, 164, 194; North- 
umberland, 8, 39, 155; Nottoway, 
44; Ohio, 150, 158, 194; Orange, 
9, 45, 82; Page, 196; Patrick, 
158; Pittsylvania, 116, 159; Poca- 
hontas, 116; Prince Edward, 39, 
141; Prince William, 44, 155; 
Princess Anne, 7, 164, 194; Rich- 
mond, 8, 155, 161; Roanoke, 
123; Rockbridge, 122, 123; Rus- 
sell, 196; Scott, 38; Shenandoah, 
196; Smith, 196; Smythe, 116; 
Sussex, 6, 142, 159; Warren, 163; 
Washington, 72, 120, 158, 164; 
Westmoreland, 44, 155, 159; Wood, 
195; Wythe, 83; York, 44, 155, 159. 

County superintendents advocated, 140, 
144; created, 155, 172; report, 
161 ff., 193. 

Cushing, Jonathan B., for better 
schools, 116, 117. 

Dabney, George E., quoted, 186, 187. 
Dame, George W., quoted, 109. 



Dawson, Martin, bequest, 45; supports 

two county systems, 156. 
Democracy, in theory, aristocracy in 

practice, 178, 179, 184, 185. 
District Free School Act. Vide Act 

of 1829, also Literary Fund. 
Doane, Bishop George W., quoted, 

51 (note). 
Duncan, E. S., on discrimination of 

East against the West, 138. 
Dwight, President Timothy, of Yale, 
replies to Governor Nichols, 64. 

Early settlers, 4. 

Eggleston, J. D., referred to, 175. 

Enquirer, Richmond, advocates Lan- 

casterian schools, 27. Vide Ritchie, 

also Bibliography. 
Era, new, prophesied, 64; not realized, 

75; realized, 175. 

Families of Virginia, size of, 184. 

Farneffold, John, bequest of, 8. 

Felbiger, teacher training in Silesia, 118 

Fellenburg school suggested, 120. 

Female education, to share in Literary 
Fund, 79; to establish normal 
school at Fredericksburg, 1850, 124; 
training women teachers advocated, 
124; female asylums suggested as 
practice schools, 139. Vide Garnett, 
J. M. 

Fiske, Theophilus, lectures on public 
education, 128. 

Fithian, Philip V, on family tutors, 
106, 107, in; differences in manners 
and customs of North and South, in, 
112; expense of slave labor, 183. 

Fitch, Sir Joshua, handbill of Lan- 
caster's lecture, 26. 

Fitzhugh, of Fairfax, on Lancasterian 
plan, 30. 

Franke, school at Halle, 118. Vide 
Smith, B. M. 

Fredericksburg, 164. Vide Lancaster- 
ianism, Charity and Sunday Schools. 

Free school foundations, colonial: Syms 
Eaton, 1, 23, 45; Farneffold, 8 
Hornby, 8; Humphrey Hill, 8 
Marriot, 9; Yeates, 9, 44, 45; Mathew 
Whaley, 44; Wm. Monroe, 9, 45 
Post-revolutionary: Geo. Washington 
25; David Anderson, Ed. Goode 
Faulkner, Piper, Martin Dawson 
45, 158; Robt. Blakey, Aaron Hall 
Samuel Miller, 45. 

Garnett, proposes State Board of 

Education, 66. 
Garnett, J. M., early efforts for Sunday 



222 



Index 



schools, 33; life, 33 (note); referred 
to, 87; lectures before the Virginia 
Institute, 117; on Popular Educa- 
tion, 128. 

Georgetown, D. C, Lancasterian 
School, 27. 

Germans in the Valley, 19. 

Giddings, Colonial William, on ante- 
bellum teachers, no. 

Giles, William Branch, Jefferson to, 
19. 

Gilmer, Governor, defends Literary 
Fund schools, 134. 

Glebe lands, support of colonial min- 
isters, 42, 43; transferred to Poor 
Fund, 1802, 42; united with county 
poor funds, 45; foundation of state 
school support, 43, 48, 189. 

Goode, Mr., motion to dissolve Literary 
Fund, 135. 

Hamilton, Alexander, referred to, 178. 

Ffampden-Sidney, referred to, 68; In- 
stitute of Education meets at, 117; 
alumni urge convention at Richmond, 
141; shares in Literary Fund, 192. 

Henry, Patrick, referred to, 6. 

Hill, Humphrey, bequest for free 
schools, 8, 9. 

Hill, Mr., of King and Queen, pro- 
poses scholarships for poor, 73; 
resolution passes, 74. 

Holbrook, J., scheme for training 
country teachers, 121, 122. 

Hornby, Daniel, bequest for free 
school, 8. 

Hume, Superintendent Thomas, re- 
ferred to, 163, 165, 166. 

Illiteracy, 128, 129, 132 ff., 144, 196. 
Indigence, defined by counties, 77, 

78, 102, 103. 
Industrial education for delinquents 

urged, 120, 121. 
Infant Schools, 30. 
Inspectors, Board of School, suggested, 

139- 
Institute of Education, Hampden- 

Sidney, 117; American, 117 (note). 
Internal improvement, period of, 182. 

Jefferson, Thomas, report of Revisors, 
on attitude of legislature, 1778, 12; 
on pseudo-aristocracy and igno- 
rance, 13; Bill for Diffusion of 
Knowledge, 13; against education 
as a state function, 14, 51; training 
for leadership 14, 15; to Joseph 
Priestley on university, 15; alder- 
manic system, 1796, 15; on town- 



ship government, 16; basis of popular 
government, 17; on sectional differ- 
ences, 19; "little republics in re- 
public of Virginia," 20; position 
summarized, 20 ff.; policy retards 
schools, 22; against ecclesiasticism, 
42; lottery for relief of, 46; dis- 
approves personnel Literary Fund 
board, 51; to Peter Carr on plans 
for University, 52; fights for uni- 
versity, 181 7, 57; plans for primary 
system, 57 ft., 61 ff., 87; differences 
in method from Mercer, 59; on 
ward system, 61, 86 ff.; deficiencies 
of Literary Fund schools, 86 ff.; 
discredits them in interest of Uni- 
versity, 89; urges local initiative, 
91; harsh comment on teachers, 
1820, 109; on manumission of slaves, 
12, 126 f.; policy repudiated in 
1870, 173; philosophy of education 
fundamental, 188; limitations of 
policy in overemphasis of local self- 
government, 185-6. Vide also 
Cabell and Mercer. 

Lancasterianism, referred to, n; in 
Fredericksburg and Virginia cities, 
25 ff.; economy of, 26; character 
of, 26 (note); handbill announcing 
lecture, 26, 27; at Georgetown, 27; 
advocated by Enquirer, 27; Robert 
Ould, American representative of, 
27; in Virginia counties and southern 
states, 27 ff.; urged for teachers, 118, 
119; snaring in Literary Fund, 25, 190. 

Lancaster, Joseph, visits Congress 
and Virginia cities, 29; "Lancaster 
and Speaker Clay," a pun, 29. 

"Lancaster," letter on neglect of 
education, 148. 

Leach, Arthur F., quoted, 105, 106. 

Lee, Robert E., referred to, 174. 

Letcher, Governor, referred to, 169. 

Lexington Convention, 140, 141. Vide 
Conventions. 

Libraries, school, advocated, 135, 141. 

Literary Fund, The, originates in 
colonial poor funds, 43 ff.; created, 
its sponsors, 48; dedicated to edu- 
cation of poor, 49; to be increased 
by lottery, 49; first report, 49 ff.; 
critics of, 51; effort to divert to 
higher schools, 52 ff.; report of 
1815, requests for plan, 53; mil- 
lion-dollar fund through Mercer, 
54 ff.; great enthusiasm, Ritchie 
praises, New York notes progress, 
56 ff.; question of division of, 59, 
63; Mercer proposes bank system, 



Index 



223 



Republicans oppose, defeated, 65, 
66; Garnett proposes new board to 
invest fund, 66; proposal to exclude 
primary schools, 70, 71; appro- 
priation to university and primary 
schools, Act of 1818, 73; Cabell 
and Nelson County's model account- 
ing, 78; Report of 181 8 on Literary 
Fund schools, 78; County arrear- 
ages, 81 (note); personnel of board 
changed, Superintendent of Literary 
Fund created, 98; state institu- 
tions sharing in, 123 ff.; academ- 
ies sharing in, 91, 192; Lancasterian 
and Sunday schools subsidized by, 
24, 190; $100 offered for best plan 
for school system, 136; diverted 
to war preparation, 169; chief 
instrument of control by state, 173; 
principal lent communities for school 
improvement, 173; summary of, 189. 

London Company, 4. 

Lottery, for school support, 45, 46; 
for relief of Jefferson's estate, 46; 
for all purposes, 46; to augment the 
Literary Fund, 49, 50. 

Lyceum movement, 212, 122; effort 
for better teachers, 116. 

Lynchburg, 142. 

McCabe, Gordon, on ante-bellum teach- 
ers, no. 

McDowell, James, referred to, 87, 140. 

Madison, James, referred to, 16, 87. 

Mann, Horace, referred to, 62, 128, 149. 

Manual Labor schools in Norfolk and 
Albemarle, 45; suggested for peni- 
tentiary, 120. 

Marriot, Captain, bequest of, 9. 

Massachusetts, compared with Vir- 
ginia, 100, 107, 108; creates state 
board, 24, 127. 

Means, Governor John H., quoted, 180. 

Mechanics' Institutes, 139. 

Mercer, Charles Fenton, on rate-bills, 
23, 24; life of, 24 (note); on state 
lottery, 51; augments the Literary 
Fund with Federal loans, 55; plan 
of common schools, 55; compares 
Virginia with Northern states, 55; 
opposes Jefferson's policy, 57, 
59; agrees with Jefferson, 59; plan 
of school support, 60; on economy 
of Northern state schools, 61; pro- 
poses Literary Fund banks, 65; 
substitute for Jefferson's bills, 66, 
67; Bill of 1817, 67, 68; bill de- 
feated in senate, 68; referred to, 87; 
state subsidy, 91; on sectional 
differences, 95; on teachers, 107, 



108; on French system of teacher- 
training, 118; attitude toward slavery, 
127; referred to, 162; efforts in 
legislature for free schools, 184, 189. 

Middle Class left out, 79, 91, 128, 138, 
189. 

Miller Manual Labor School, 45. 

Minor, J. B., referred to, 174. 

Mitchell, Samuel F., referred to, 64. 

Monitorial Schools, vide Lancasterian- 
ism. 

Monroe, James, 47, 64. 

Monroe, Paul, referred to, 23, 107. 

Monroe, William, bequests of, 9, 45. 

Montague, Governor A. J., 175. 

Negroes, advantage over white labor, 
4, 5; compared to early poor, 32; in 
modern legislation, 97. 

Newspapers for better schools, 114 ff. 

New York and Virginia compared, 57, 61, 
85; created superintendent, 66, 127. 

Nichols, Governor, quoted, 53; asks 
for suggestions, 64; casts suggestions 
into plan, 64; referred to, 87. 

Norfolk City, Manual Labor School, 
45; creates Free Schools, 164. 

North and South alike, 10, 178, 179. 

Normal Schools, movement for, 118 ff.; 
plan of Rockbridge Agricultural 
Society, 122; urged by educational 
conventions, 122; Smithsonian legacy 
urged as a basis for, 123; state 
students at Randolph-Macon, V. M. I. 
University, 123 ff.; urged by B. M. 
Smith, 131; plan of Ruffner, 141. 
Vide Conventions. 

Old Field Schools, referred to, 6; 
described, 109 (note), noff.; in- 
fluence of imported teachers, 187 ff.; 
given impetus, 191. Vide Teachers. 

Orange County Humane Society, 45. 

Osgood, T., on education through 
tracts, 32. 

Ould, Robert, representative of Lan- 
caster, 27 

Page, David B., referred to, 127. 

Parkersburg, votes free schools, 195. 

Paupers in U. S., 196; in Virginia, 96. 

Pendleton, Edmund, referred to, 42. 

Pestalozzianism, at Rumford Academy, 
115; introduced in Nelson County 
by Cabell, 119, 120; methods asked 
for by Lynchburg and Washington 
Counties, n 9-21; systems based 
on, 139. 

Petersburg, 29. 

Pleasants, Governor James, 82, 83. 

Pole, Thomas, quoted, 34. 



224 



Index 



Poor Laws, English, 5; regarding 
apprentices, 9; referred to, 14, 
70, 190. 

Poorhouses, by sale of glebe, 44; schools 
in, 190. 

Poor School Society, 44. 

Portsmouth, Sunday School in, 39; 
creates public schools, 163; referred 
to, 158, 164, 194. 

Post-bellum school system, 172, 173. 
Vide Act of 1870. 

Preston, Governor James, 78, 79. 

Primary schools, inaugurated, 76 ff.; 
expenditures for, 831!.; commis- 
sioners' report on, 143, 144, 145; cost 
of, 145, 146; ex-professor on value 
of, 86; defects of, 129, 151; sharing 
in Literary Fund, 192. Vide Act of 
1818, also County reports. 

Private schools, cost of, 16, 91, 184; 
number of, 191 ff.; poor in, 190. 

Property and suffrage, 94. 

Prussian school system, 129, 131; 
for teacher-training, 118. Vide Smith, 
B. M. 

Public Works, Board of, 63. 

Raikes, Robert, 30, 31. 

Randolph, Governor Thomas, on ex- 
clusion of middle class, 79 ff.; on 
scholarships for teachers, 112. 

Randolph, John, on suffrage, 94. 

Randolph-Macon College, 123. 

Rate-bills, 23, 77. 

Reconstruction, 170, 171. 

Repass, W. G., quoted, no. 

Revival, Common Schools, 138 ff. 

Rhode Island, referred to, 129. 

Rice, J. H., " Philodemus," on Sunday 
school unions, 37; on cost of Uni- 
versity, 91, 92; on difficulties of 
teachers, 112; in interest of acade- 
mies, 128, 184; on standards of the 
University, 184. 

Richie, Thomas, vide Bibliography, 
Richmond Enquirer; urges investi- 
gation of charity funds, 51; edi- 
torial, 54; on internal improvement, 
56; on report of Literary Fund, 65; 
on legislature, 1816, 68, 169; on 
Act of 1818, 73; on Mr. Hill's sub- 
stitute, 74; on accounts of Nelson 
County, 78; on abuse of charity 
funds, 78; identified with academy 
movement, 91; friend of public 
education, 128; advocates school 
libiaries, 135; collaborator with 
Scott and Smith in primary school 
report, 1841, 143 ff.; protests failure 
of School Bill, 1841, 147. 



Richmond convention, vide Conventions. 

Richmond City, elects delegates, 142. 
Vide Sunday schools and Lancas- 
terianism. 

Richmond Lancasterian School, 27, 28. 

Rives, William C, referred to by 
Jefferson, 88; introduces convention 
(1841) memorial to legislature, 147. 

Roane, Judge Spencer, on defects in 
Act of 1818, 75; defends state in 
State vs. Church, 42. 

Rossett, J. D., project for district 
schools, 138. 

Ruffner, Henry A., referred to, 67; on 
expenditures for University, 138; 
plan of a district free school system, 
140; father of William H. Ruffner, 174. 

Ruffner, William H., first superinten- 
dent, 174, 175. 

Sandys, Sir Edward, fathered charters 
of London Company, 1 (note). 

Sanford, Samuel, bequest of, 9. 

" Schools for Education of All Classes," 
10; counties operating under, 163, 164, 
165, 194, 195 ff. Vide Act of 1846. 

Schoolhouses, courthouses, 8; diffi- 
culty in locating sites, 17, 83; con- 
ditions of, 139, 145, 156. 

School terms, length of, 196. 

Scotch-Irish as teachers, 107. 

Scotch-Presbyterians, 19. 

Scott, R. G., reports on primary schools, 

I43-I45- 

Sears, Barnas, Peabody agent, praises 
efforts of Virginia in 1870, 175. 

Secession, Convention of, 168. 

Sectionalism, referred to, 10; causes of, 
17-20, 93 ff., 103; explains retarda- 
tion of education, 178; economic 
differences between East and West, 
181 ff. 

Semple, Mr., presents bill, 1806, for 
University, 46. 

Separation Acts, 1802, test suits by 
Episcopal Church, 42. 

Seymour, attorney general under Wil- 
liam and Mary, quoted, 3. 

Slavery, introduced, 4; Virginia a 
slave state, 93; Jefferson, Mercer, 
Wythe, etc., on anti-slavery societies 
in Virginia, overshadows other issues, 
127; explains retardation of educa- 
tion, 178; Mrs. Robert Carter on 
economic burden of, 182 ff. 

Smith, B. M., report on Prussian system, 
118 ff., 129 ff.; reports on primary 
schools with Scott and Ritchie, 
1841, 143-45- 

Smith, Francis H., on V. M. I., as a 



Index 



225 



normal school, 123 ff.; plan for 
common schools, 148. 

Smith, J. A., 64. 

Southern Sunday School Enterprize, 
31 (note). 

State Board of Education, volunteer 
body of convention, 1 846, 150, 162,194. 

State Superintendent, office advocated, 
137, 140, 144, quasi-superintendent 
created, 1829, 98, 193, 194; created, 
172, 192; in other states, 24, 127 
(note) . 

Statistics, school census of 1840, 123 ff.; 
of i860, 196; growth of Literary 
Fund schools, 190. 

Staunton, as site for capital, 72. 

Stowe, Calvin, 130. Vide Smith, B. M. 

Sunday Schools, referred to, n, 26; 
American Union statistics, 30 ff.; 
early in Virginia, 30 ff . ; Southern 
Enterprize proposed, 31; Sunday 
Schools proposed a substitute for 
common schools, 31; devices for 
teaching reading to poor, 32; New 
Testament as reader, 35; J. M. 
Garnett's school in Essex, 33, 35; 
Governor Clinton on, 33; not limited 
to church, 33, 34; in England, 34 
(note); on Battaile's land, 34; prog- 
ress around Fredericksburg, 35; in 
Winchester, 36; Sunday school dogma, 
rich and poor attend, etc., 36 ff.; 
Rice supports, 37; minimizes 
dogma, 35 ff.; in various counties, 
benefits to free schools summarized, 39; 
subsidized by the state, 25, 38 ff., 190. 

Syms, Benjamin, bequest of, 1, 23, 45. 

Taylor, Samuel, introduces Jefferson's 
bills, 73. 

Tazewell, Mr., supports Literary Fund 
banks, 65. 

Teachers, Hugh Jones on colonial 
teachers and parish clerks, 105, 
106; Mercer on supply of, 107, 108; 
Revolution destroys source of, 107; 
Ichabod Crane an American type, 
107; transients, in; supply in 
counties, 108; attitude toward, in Vir- 
ginia, 1 1 1-4; certification of teachers' 
character and competency, 107-112, 
117, 118 ff., 137; teachers and anti- 
slavery, 125; as a cause of preju- 
dice against schools, 187, 188; 
scholarships at University, 118; 
V. M.I., 123; why men do not 
enter, 113; difficulties of, in ff.; des- 
cription of " Old Field," 109. 

Teacher-training, 112, 114. Vide Nor- 
mal schools, also Pestalozzianism. 



Text-books, list in use in 1846, 116. 

Thiel, Casper, 146. 

Thompson, John R., 128. 

Thomas, J., 36 f. 

Thomas, Mr., of Fairfax, 47. 

Township system, 13. Vide Jefferson. 

Tract movement, 13, 32 ff. 

Tucker, George, 42. 

Tucker, Henry St. George, 171. 

Tutors, 6, 105, 106, in, 184. Vide 

Fithian. 
Tyler, John, quoted, 47, 129. 
Tyler, Lyon G., referred to, 106. Vide 

Bibliography. 

Underwood convention, 171, 175, 177. 

University of Virginia, vide Jefferson, 
claimants for site of, 67, 72; appro- 
priation for, 63, 87, 180; established 
by Act of 1 818, 74; "Constituent" 
on, 71; referred to, 88, 89; con- 
sidered aristocratic, 90; money ex- 
pended on, 92, 138, 145, 187; regarded 
by West as obstacle to common 
schools, 92; Campbell on, 96; 
Ruffner, Duncan, Campbell quoted, 
138; scholarships for teachers at, 
118, 124; tutors necessary to pre- 
pare for, 184. 

Vawter's Church, 43. 

Virginia Military Institute, permitted 
to train teachers, 123, 124; appro- 
priation from Literary Fund, 193. 

"Virginian" vs. "E" controversy, 142. 

"Virginian" (Vindication) vs. "Con- 
stituent," 70 ff. 

Washington, George, 25 ff. 

Washington College, 72. 

Wealth of Virginia, 183. 

West Virginia, 51, 171. 

Whaley, Matthew, free school lands, 44. 

Wheeling, 164, 194. 

William and Mary, subscribed to by 
Berkeley, 2; referred to, 6, 192; Uni- 
versity of, 13, 14; supplanted in 
Jefferson's plan, 15; claimant for 
university, 72, 73; on removal to 
Richmond, 73; attitude of students 
toward slavery, 127 (note). Vide 
Jefferson. 

Williamsburg, 85, 142, 144, 155, 171. 

Winchester Sunday School, 36, 37. 

Wise, Henry A., dominates convention, 
1856, quoted, 167 ff.; recommends 
appropriation, 182 ff. 

Wythe, George, 127. 

Yeates, John, bequest of, 9; land sold 
for free school, 44; fund reincor- 
porated, 45. 



VITA 

The author of this dissertation was born in Richmond, 
Virginia, February 24, 1883. After completing the work in 
the grades of the public schools of Washington, D. C, he 
entered in 1899 the preparatory department of the College of 
William and Mary, graduating with the teaching degree of 
L.I. in 1903, and that of A.B. and initiation into Phi Beta 
Kappa in 1904. Graduate work in education, history, psy- 
chology and sociology was continued at Columbia University 
during the summer sessions of 1907-08, '09, '10 and '11, ter- 
minating in the degree of A.M., 191 1. In 1912-13 he was a 
research scholar in education at Teachers College; subsequently 
part of the year of 191 5-16 was spent at Teachers College. 

Before graduating, 1902-03, the writer was an assistant in 
philosophy and pedagogy at the College of William and Mary; 
from 1904-07, principal of a grammar school, Portsmouth, Va.; 
1907-08, principal of the Norfolk County, Va., High School 
and director of the County Training School for Teachers; 
1908-10, superintendent of schools, Henrico County, Va.; 
1 9 10-13, instructor in education and principal of the Training 
School, State Normal School, Farmville, Va.; 1913-16, director 
of the training of teachers, State Normal School, Oswego, N. Y.; 

1916-18, associate in education, 1918 , assistant professor 

of education, Teachers College, Columbia University. 



8952 



V* .#fe\ \/ :H: V** -life. X/ 




** v % 




WERT 
BOOKBINDING 

MICClETOWN P& 

NOV. 83 

We re Qualify Sovnr. 



